Skip to main content

Full text of "An inquiry into the Scriptural import of the words sheol, hades, tartarus"

See other formats 


Google 



This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http: //books .google .com/I 



I 






AN 



INQUIRY 



INTO THE SCRIPTURAL IMPORT OF THE WORDS 



SHEOL, 
HADES, TARTARUS, AND GEHENNA: 



ALL TRANSLATED 



HELL, 



IN THE COMMON ENGLISH Vl^RSION. 



BY WALTER JALFOUR, 
Charlestown, Mass. 



THIRD EDITION. 

BOSTON: 

PUBLISHED BY BENJ. B. MUSSEY, 39 CORNHILL. 

LEONARD W. KIMBALL, PRINTER. 












Entered according to Act of CongreB8« in the year 1832, by 

Walter Balfour, 
in the Clerk's office of the District Court of Massachusetts. 



'' ■'■I ' 



-^ 



CONTENTS. 



Introduction, - - - • - - - v 

CHAPTER I. 

Sect. r. All the passages of Scripture considered, in 
which Sheol occurs, translated pit, grave, 
and hell, in the common version, - - 13 

Sect. ii. All the passages in which Hades occurs, con- ^ 
sidered, rendered grave, and hell, in the 
common version, - - - ' 58 

Sect. hi. 2 Peter ii. 4, in whicli Tartarus occurs, con- 
sidered, rendered hell in the common ver- 
sion, - - , - - . 19 

CHAPTER n. 

Gehenna, uniformly translated hell in the New Testa- 
ment, considered, as a place of eternal pun- 
ishment, - - - - 105 

Sect. i. Remarks on Dr. Campbell's views of Gehenna, 105 

Sect. ii. A number of facts stated, showing that Ge- 
henna was not used by tie New Testament 
writers, to express a place of endless misery, 123 

Sect.' hi. All the passages in which Gehenna occurs, 

considered, - . . . 132 

Sect. iv. Additional facts stated, proving that Gehenna 
Was not used by the sacred writers, to ex- 
/ press a place of endless misery, - 196 

Sect. v. The argument derived from the Targums, and 
other Jewish writings, that Gehenna means 
a place of endless misery, considered, - 231 

Sect. vi. Objections considered, - - - 265 

Sect. vii. Concluding remarks, ... 326 



INTRODUCnON. 



The simple object of the author, in this Inquiry, is, to examine 
the foundation on which the doctrine of endless misery is built 
This doctrine, rests on the fact or the falsehood^ that a place called 
hdl, in a future state, is prepared for the punishment of the 
wicked. In speaking, preaching, and writing on the subject, 
this is always taken for granted as indisputable. Most Univer- 
salists have conceded this to their opponents, and have contended, 
not against the existence of such a place of misery, but against 
the endless duration of its punishment* The principal writers, 
on both sides of this question, admit tliat there is a place of 
future punishment, and that the name of it is heU. Winchester, 
Murray, Chauncey Huntingdon, and others, admit that hell is a 
place of future punishment Edwards, Strong, and others, who 
opposed them, had no occasion to prove this, but only to show 
that it was to be endless in its duration. This Inquiry, is 
principally for the purpose of Investigating, if what has oeen 
taken for granted by the one party, and conceded by the other, 
is a doctrine taught in Scripture. If the views I have advan- 
ced are false, it still leaves the question between Universalists. 
and their opponents undisturbed. If they are fQund upon ex- 
amination to be true, all dispute about endless misery in hell must 
of course cease, for if no such place exists, why mspute about 
the endless duration of its punishment ? 

* When the first edition of the Inquiry was published, the author's 
attention was entirely directed to the endless duration of future punishment. 
From his examinations then, he had strong doubts of limited future punish- 
ment. Subsequent investigations, have confirmed and increased these 
doubts, nor has he seen any satisfactory evidence, tliat limited any more 
than endless punishment is taught in scripture. He thinks he has candidly 
considered all which his brethren have urged in defense of a limited future 
punishment, but the arguments used, and the scriptures quoted, only tend 
to confirm him in the opinion, that the doctrine of limited future punisbment 
cannot be supported from the Bible. But, bis ears are still open, to listen 
to what can be said on the subject. 

1* 



VI INTRODUCTION. 

The author is aware, that the subject he has undertaken to 
discuss, is both solemn and important^ and that his sentiments, 
arb not in unison with the principles and prejudices of the re- 
ligious community. He is deeply sensible, that much learning, 
and piety, and popular opinion, are against him./ The doctrine 
he opposes, is a fundamental article in most religious creeds, is 
taught weekly from almost every pulpit, and writings from the 
press are numerous in its support. 

There are some, we hope many, who would rejoice to find it 
fairly and scripturally proved, that heU is not a place of endless 
punishment Their benevolence of disposition, and their ina- 
bility to reconcile this doctrine with the character of God and 
with many parts of his word, concur in leading them to wish, 
that clear and decided evidence of this might appear. From 
such, the author expects a candid and patient hearing of the 
evidence he has to produce. All he wishes, is, that ms argu- 
ments, and explanations of Scripture may be impartially exam- 
ined, and his views received or rejected accordingly. The im- 
portance of the subject demands, that it be candifly and impar- 
tially examined. But there are other considerations, which 
ouffht to excite universal attention to it. In the present day, 
various opinions are entertained as to the future punishment of 
the wicked, and that by men, eminent for both learning and piety. 
Some hold to the doctrine of eternal punishment, some to its 
being of limited duration. Others think they are to be annihi- 
lated, and some hrnig in doubt, not having any fixed belief on 
the subject. If the Bible does teach any uiing certain on this 
subject, all ought to know it ; and in no other Way can this be 
ascertained, but by mutually communicating our researches for 
candid consideration to the public, and let all ]r#en,* through a 
free press, read and judge for themselves. To deter men from 
investigation, on a subject which involves their eternal condition, 
is of aU inquisitions the worst , 

As to the sentiments advanced, the author makes no apology 
for them, nor does he claim any indulgence from his readers. 
He has appealed to the Scriptures, and to this test he desires 
his views to be brought for examination. If they are found 
false, no one can wish more sincerely than himself, to see their 
ftlsity detected. If true, they are of too much importance, and 
Gk>d's character is too much concerned, to be treated with in- 
difference by judicious men. If God never threatened men 
with endless, or any misery in hell, it places his character in a 
very different light from that in which it is generally viewed. 

The attempt has been made, to conduct mis investigation in 
a cool, rational, and scriptural manner, and to express with plain- 
ness and candor the sentiments advanced, for the candid consid- 



INTRODUCTION. Vll 

eration of others. We have endeavored to state, what we con- 
sider truth on this subject, and to state it in the spirit of the 
truth. Should any thing contrary to this be discerned, we hope 
the reader will impute it to inadvertence, and not to design. 

In the course of the work, a number of quotations have been 
made from different authors. But few or none, have been tak- 
en from Universalist writers. We have purposely avoided this, 
and have availed ourselves of quotations from those, who, while 
opposed to the views advanced, have conceded many things in 
favor of them. The testimony of an opponent is always reck- 
oned valuable. Such testimonies, might have been increased 
had it been necessary. But we rest the truth of the views ad- 
vanced, on evidence we have drawn from Scripture. 

The path in which the author has trod, in this Inquiry, has 
been new to himself, and but little frequented by other writers, 
of which he has any knowledge. That we have not in any in- 
stance, turned aside from the path of truth in our statements, 
we do not affirm. It would be surprising if we had not, for to 
err is human. All we can say, is, that we have studied to be 
accurate in our statements, and to be guided by the Scriptures 
in the explanations we have given. Should any trifling inaccu- 
racies be pointed out, ;ny time and habits of thinking, forbid 
my promising, any reply. Any answer, meeting the body of the 
evidence produced, shall be attended to, either by acknowledg- 
ing my error, or by defending what I have written. That the 
truth of God on this, and every other subject, may be made 
manifest and prevail, is the desire of the author, whatever may 
become of his sentiments. 

In presenting, the third edition of the Inquiry to the public, it 
may be proper to inform the reader, of the following things re- 
specting it The first echtion was published in 1824. It would 
be tedious, and would occupy more room than we can spare to 
notice all the attacks which have been made upon it, from the 
pulpit, and in the public journals, since its first publiqation. The 
instances, which have come within the range of our own person- 
al knowledge and observation, have not been few. We shall 
only notice the attempts, which have been made to refute it, in 
regular book form. 

The first attempt, was made by Mr. James Sabine, a Boston 
Clergyman, soon after the Inquiry was first published. A Gen- 
tleman, called on the Clergy in the public journals, either to re- 
frite the Inquiry, or confess they were deceiving the people. 
This caU roused Mr. Sabine ; and he announced in the public 
papers, Jhis intention to refute the Inquiry, provided a suitable 
meeting house was obtained, his own being inconvenient for 
the purpose. When all sects, declined offering him a house for 



via INTRODUCTION. 

the purpose, the Universalist Society in Charlestown, unani- 
mously voted him the use of theirs. He accepted their offer ; 
and delivered six discourses, one every other Sabbath evening, to 
excessively crowded audiences. He afterwards published his 
discourses ; and our reply to them, appeared in 1825. This pub- 
lic, and published attack on the Inquiry, hastened a second edi- 
tion of it in a cheaper form, -but in every material respect the 
same as the first Mr. Sabine's attempt to refute the Inquiry, 
was considered very generally a total failure. He did not pre- 
tend to advocate endless punishment; nor, did his discourses 
touch the principal facts and arguments contained in the Inquiry. 
All seemed to allow, his discourses did more evil than good, to 
the cause of endless punishment. They however, excited in- 
quiry in the public mind, and somewhat promoted the demand 
for the Inquiry, which was very unpopular. Most people de-. 
nounced it as a pernicious book, but felt perplexed with the evi- 
dence it contained, and were desirous to. see it refuted. 

The next attempt to refute the Inquiry, was made by Mr. 
Charles Hudson, a Universalist Clergyman, in Westminister, 
Mass. His letters appeared in 1827, and were replied to in my 
essays, which were published in 1828. Mr. Hudson's "reply" to 
my essays appeared in 1829 ; and in the same year, my letters in 
answer to it were published. From some cause or other, like 
Mr. Sabine, he passed over the principal facts and arguments of 
the Inquiry, stiU leaving the book to be answered by some one 
else. 

Dr. Allen, President of Bowdoin College, Maine, was the next 
person who made an attack on the Inquiry. This he did in a 
lecture, which he first delivered before the Students of the Col- 
lege, and afterwards published. We replied to liis lecture, in a 
letter, which was published in 1828. The Dr.'s attempt to re- 
fute the Inquiry, was deemed so weak, even by his own friends, 
that his pamphlet was withdrawn from the bookstores and sup- 
pressed, if Qur information is correct. It is certain, it was fre- 
quently asked for in the bookstores in Boston, but could not be 
obtained ; and very few persons in this region, ever procured a 
copy of it. The very weakness of this effort to refute the In- 
quiry, was calculated to lead many to think it could not be an- 
swered. 

The last attempt, to refute the Inquiry, was made by Profes- 
sor Stuart of Andover. From some cause or other, the public 
had long looked to him, to furnish a refutation of the Inquiry. 
The failure of the preceding attempts to refute it, was imputed 
by some to the want of talent. When Mr. Sabine did not suc- 
ceed, we heard it remarked — " if Mr. Stuart only takes hold of 
it, he will easily refute it." At last, his exegetical essays ap- 



INTRODUCTION. , IX 

• 

peared in 1830. Though he avoids naming me, or the Inquiry 
m them, it is obvious enough to all, they were written to coun- 
teract the effect, which the Inquiry had produced on the public 
mmd ; and'also, what I had written in my second Inquiry, on the 
words rendered everlasting, and forever, in our common version. 
We replied to these essays, in a series of letters addressed to 
Mr. Stuart, which were published in 1831. He has not yet made 
any reply to them. Here the controversy for the present rests. 

Before Mr. Stuart's essays appeared, we supposed he must 
have something new and powerRil to produce : that the Inquiry 
would receive a full and fair reply, and that I should see in what 
my error consisted. But we are entirely disappointed : for like 
all the preceding attempts to refute it, the principal tacts and 
arguments are passed over without any notice. Indeed, 
many of Mr, Stuart's statements, confirm the views advanc- 
ed in the Inquiry. We begin to suspect, no respectable re- 
ply can be made to it, which will prove, that Sheol, Hades, Tar- 
tarus, or Gehenna, designates a place of endless misery to the 
wicked. We have too nigh an opinion of Mr. Stuart's under- 
standing, to think, that he considers his essays deserving the 
name of an answer to the Inquiry. We have never heard of a 
single intelligent man, orthodox or otherwise, who thinks his 
essays a reply to it. But we have heard several express a con- 
trary opinion. If the book then is not unanswerable, we may 
say, it yet remains unanswered. ' 

We have now a word or two to say, respecting this third edi- 
tion of the Inquiry. In every material respect, it is the same as 
the first and second editions. The only alterations deserving 
notice, are the following. All the texts under Sheol, Hades, 
Tartarus, and Gehenna, are arranged and considered, in the or- 
der they occur in the Bible. But the arguments and explana- 
tions are for substance the same as in the preceding editions. 
We have perhaps somewhat improved them fi:om Mr. Stuart's 
essays. When we have dissented fi:om him, we have quoted 
bis words and remarked on them, or referred to our reply to his 
essays, where our remarks are to be found. Some slight alter- 
ations in the arrangement of the matter, in a few other places 
have been made ; and some new matter has been introduced. 
But all the facts and arguments, and indeed the whole substance 
of the work, remains the same. We have seen nothing, nor 
have we been able to think of any thing, which alters the views 
we have expressed in the Inquiry. After all the attacks which 
have been made upon it, its foundation remains unshaken, and 
its pillars and posts unbroken. They have only tended to show, 
the solid foundation on which the views advocated in the In- 
quiry rest ; and ought to excite my gratitude, to the men who 



X INTRODUCTION. 

have made them. Without these attacks, I might have ffone 
down to my grave doubting, whether I might not, after afl, be 
mistaken in my views. It would be almbst sinful in me now to. 
doubt their correctness, considering the character, talents, and 
standing of the men, who have tried, but failed to point out my 
error. 

No doubt, many will still think, I am greatly mistaken in my 
views. Well ; perhaps I may be mistaken. But what would 
such people have me to do ? Not surely to renounce my present 
views, until I am convinced by scripture facts and arguments, 
that they are wrong. If they believe me to be in error, why not 
make a further attempt to show this ? My eyes are not closed, 
my ears are not dull of hearing, nor is my heart, I trust waxed so 
fat, but I shall attend to evidence drawn from scripture, to con- 
vince me of my error. Let my blood then, be on the head of 
those, who condemn me for my error, yet refuse to furnish me 
with scriptural evidence, that I am wrong and they are right in 
their opinions. 

Because all past attempts to refute the inquiry, have been 
fruitless, I do not say, but it may yet be done. My earnest de- 
sire is, that it should be accomplished, if it can be done. What 
profit can it be to me to continue in error ? I have attended 
with serious care, to all the attacks made on the inquiry, but so 
far from convincing me that my views are unscriptural, tliey 
have strongly confirmed me in their correctness. Whether this 
arises from obstinacy in error on my part, or weakness on the 
part of those who madethese attacks, let others judge. My own 
opinion is, the views I have stated are the truth; for if they had 
been false, the talents and learning of the men, with whom I 
have had to contend, would long before now have exposed them. 
If my views have not been refuted, no one can say now, it was 
only because dwarfs attempted it Who is a greater giant 
among orthodox people, than Professor Stuart ? 

We have heard it repeatedly observed, allowing all the texts 
in the Bible were laid aside, which speak of Sheol, Hades, Tar- 
tarus and Gehenna, the doctrine of endless punishment can be 
established from other texts. Well ; if people are sincere in 
making this observation, why not lay all such useless texts aside, 
and support the doctrine of endless punishment from these other 
texts ? But, does Mr. Stuart and others pursue this course ? 
No ; he knows too much to adopt it. He well knows, that if the 
texts which speak of Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna or 
hell, are abandoned, the whole foundation of endless punish- 
ment is broken up, and no other foundation can be found for it 
in scripture. Mr. Stuart holds fkst to this, as his last and only 
hope of safety, for the doctrine of endless punishment. Give up 



INTRODUCTION. XI 

the texts which speak of hell, and every man, woman, and child, 
would question the truth of this doctrine. Tell them, heU is not 
a place of endless punishment, or of any punishment in a future 
state, and their resentment would be roused to indignation, 
against their religious teachers, for sc^ long imposing on the 
pablic. 

The time has now arrived, when peopl^ will inquire into the 
truth of the doctrine of endless punishment. Pulpit declama- 
tion, against the doctrine of universal salvation, has lost its ef- 
fect; and the terrors of aH endless hell, frighten very few, except 
the weak and ill informed in the community. Seeing people are 
disposed to investigate this subject, let not the believers in end- 
less punishment, now attempt to hush the subject to rest. We 
entreat them to bring forth all their strength, if they have not 
done it already. Truth can never lose anything, by free, amica- 
ble, and candid discussion. 

Some good people, have a great aversion to all religious con- 
troversy- But how can this be avoided, so long as people diifer 
about the true sense of Scripture. Shall we sit down contented, 
believing that endless punishment, and the opposite doctrine are 
both true ? Had the reformers deprecated all religious contro- 
versy, no reformation could have been eifected. Yea, had the 
Scripture writers declined all controversy, the truth of God had 
long ago been banished from the earth. The Bible is full of 
religious controversy, for God's truth, in all ages has been at 
war with error, in the various shapes it has assumed. It had to 
contend with Paganism, Judaism, and other systems of reliffion, 
ages ago. In modern times, the various Christian sects have ' 
their religious controversies with each other ; and even persons 
belonging to the same sect, have their religious discussions. 
Have not the Unitarians, and those called orthodox, had lately 
their religious controversies ? Have not the Presbyterians, and 
the Congregationalrsts^also had their controversies? And is 
not religious controversy, now going on among the orthodox 
people, in this very region. But what are the points discussed 
among them, compared with the one discussed in tlie following 
pages — IS the doctrine of endless punishment true ? All other con- 
troversies compared to this, are like the small dust in the bal- 
^ ance. Every other controversy ought to cease, until this ques- 
tion is settled. And if settled, that endless pimishment is 
nnscriptural, it would put an end to many other controversies 
which exist. It would at least produce better feelings, among 
many professed Christians towards each other. 

Reliorious controversy to be sure, proves our imperfection in 
knowledge. But it only becomes a serious evil, when we in- 
dulge our own evil passions in conducting it. But let us study 



XU INTRODUCTION. 

to avoid this, and ever remember, that the wrath of man work- 
eth not the righteousness of Godl We ou^ht to contend tar^' 
nesUy, but not bitterly for the faith once dehvered to the saints. 
It is pleasing to observe, that in our day, religious controveiBy 
is conducted in a nmch better spirit, than in former years. The 
spirit of the truth, seems to have more influence over the mind 
in contending for it, and we hope, is one of the si^ns of the 
times, that all sects are making a nearer approacluto uie unadul- 
terated truth of God taught in the Scriptmres. 

To conclude. The Bible contains Uie whole of my religion. 
To this b^ook I have appealed for the truth of my opinions. If 
any one should deem it proper, to make another attempt to re- 
fute the Inquiry, I be? of him to confine his attention to this 
book. An appeal made to the later Jewish writers, can never 
settle the questions at issue. To abridge the discussion as much 
as possible, I propose the following mode, of bringing it in the 
shortest way to a close. Let the text or texts be selected, which 
are supposed the strongest in the Bible, in proof of the doctrine 
' of endless punishment, and let them be fully and fairly exam- 
ined. If but one text teaches this doctrine, I am made a con- 
vert to it Whoever then thinks, the bible is full of the doctrine, 
let them make the best selection of texts they can, and come 
forward with them for discusion. If alive and in health, we shall 
attend to the evidence which may be produced, for what saith 
the scriptures is the grand question with us in all our investiga- 
tions ? 



AN INQUIRY, &c. 



CHAPTER I. 



Words are signs of Men's ideas, arid were used as 
such by the inspired writers, as they must be by every 
man who speaks and writes to be understood. To un- 
derstand their writings, it is necessary to ascertain what 
sense they afBxed to their words, and this we can only 
learn, by consulting Scripture usage of them. That 
men have attached ideas to some Scripture words and 
phrases, which they never meant to convey by them, 
will not be denied. That this is not the case with the 
words Sheol, Hades, Tatarus, and Gehennay which we 
propose to examine, ought not to be taken for granted. 



SECTION I. 

ALL THE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE CONSIDERED, IN 
WHICH SHEOL OCCURS, TRANSLATED PIT, GRAVE, 
AND HELL, IN THE COMMON VERSION. 

The idea which most Christians have attached to 
the word hell^ is a place of eternal punishment for all 
the wicked. Wherever they meet with this word, it 

2 



14 AN 1NQ,UIRT INTO 

calls up the idea of such a place of punishment, and by 
many it will be deemed the worst of heresies, to give 
it any other signification. The cry of heresy ought not, 
however, to deter us from candidly inquiring, " what is 
truth ?" on this deeply interesting question. 

It is well known that there are four words in the 
original languages of the Bible, which are all translated 
by the word nelly in our common English version. 
These are Sheol^ Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna. The 
two first of these words are sometimes translated grave, 
as well as hell; the two last always hell in the common 
translation. 

There is one fact, which deserves attention at the 
outset, of which many readers of the Bible are igno- 
rant. The fact I allude to, is, that the word sheol, heU 
does not occur in the Old Testament, where it means 
a place of eternal misery for the wicked.* The fact 
is indisputable ; no man can doubt it who will take the 
trouble to examine this matter for himself Nor is this 
a novel opinion, or a new discovery of mine. The fact 
is attested by some of the ablest writers, who believed 
in this doctrine. Dr. Campbell, in his 6th Preliminary 
Dissertion, thus writes : — " as to the word Hades which 
occurs in eleven places of the New Testament, and is 
rendered hell in all, except one, where it is translated 

frave, it is quite common in the classical authors, and 
equently used by the Seventy, in the translation of 
the Old Testament. In my judgment it ought never 
in Scripture to be rendered hell, at least in the sense 
wherein that word is now universally understood by 
Christians. In the Old Testament, the corresponding 
word is Sheoly which signifies the state of the dead in 
general, without regard to the goodness or badness of 
the persons, their happiness or misery. In translating 

♦ Professor Stuart says—" sheol designates future punUhmentt" but 
adds, we most also admit, that it does not determine, of itself, the durm- 
Hon of that pnaishHient." JExeget, E»9ay$, p. 107. , 



THE WORD SHEOL. 15 

Aat word, the Seventy have almost invariably used 
Hades. This word is also used sometimes in rendering 
tbe nearly synonymous words or phrases bor and abne 
hor, the pity and stones of the pit, tsal moth, the shades 
of death, dumehy silence. The state is always repre- 
sented under those figures which suggest something ' 
dreadful, dark, and silent, about which the most prying 
eye, and listening ear, can acquire no information. The 
term Hades, is well adapted to express this idea. It 
was written anciently, as we learn from the poets ^for 
what is called the poetic, is nothing but the ancient dia- 
lect) aides, ah a privativo et eido video, and signifies 
obscure, hidden, invisible. To this the word Hell in 
its primitive signification, perfectly corresponded. For, 
at first, it denoted only what was secret or concealed. 
This word is found with little variation of form, and 
precisely in the same meaning, in all the Teutonic 
dialects. 

" But though our word hell in its original signification, 
was more adapted to express the sense of Hades than 
of Gehenna, it is not so now. When we speak as Chris- 
tians, we always express by it, the place of the punish- 
ment of the wicked after the general judgment, as oppos- 
ed to heaven, the place of the reward of the righteous. 
It is true, that in translating heathen poets, we retain 
the old sense of the word hell, which answers to the 
Latin orcus, or rather infemus, as when we speak of 
Ae descent of Eneas, or of Orpheus, into hell. Now 
the word infemus, in Latin, comprehends the recepta- 
cle of all the dead, and contains both elysium, the place 
of the blessed, and Tartarus, the abode of the miserable. 
The term infemi, comprehends all the inhabitants good 
and bad, happy and wretched. The Latin words infer- 
nus, and infemi, bear evident traces of the notion that 
the repositonr of the souls of the departed is under 
ground.''^ This appears also to have been the opinion 

^ What mend writer, I nsk, snys, •* the repository of the 9iml$ of the 



16 AN INQ,UIRY INTO 

of both Greeks and Hebrews, and indeed of all antiquity. 
How far the ancient practice of burying the body, may 
have contributed to produce this idea concerning the 
mansion of the ghosts of the deceased, I shall not take 
upon me to say ; but it is very plain, that niither in, 
the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, nor in 
the New, does the word Hades convey the meaning which 
the present English word hell, in the Christian usage, 
always conveys to our minds, 

"It were endless to illustrate this remark, by an enu- 
meration and examination of all the passages in both 
Testaments wherein the word is found. The attempt 
would be unnecessary, as it is hardly now pretended by 
any critic, that this is the acceptation of the term in the 
Old Testament. Who, for example would render the 
words of the venerable patriarch Jacob, Gen, xxxvii. 
35, when he was deceived by his sons into the opinion 
that his favorite child Joseph had been devoured by 
a wild beast, I will go dotvn to hell to my son m<mm^ 
ing ? or the words which he used, ch. xlii, 38, when 
they expostulated with him about sending his youngest 
son Benjamin into Egypt along with them. Ye will bring 
down my gray hairs with sorrow to hell 1 Yet in both 
places the word, in the original, is Sheol, and in the 
version of the Seventy, Hades. I shall only add, that 
in the famous passage from the Psalms, xvi. 10, quoted 
in the Acts of the Apostles, Acts ii. 27, of which I shall 
have occasion to take notice afterwards, though the word 
is the same both in Hebrew and in Greek, as in the two 
former quotations, and' though it is in both places ren- 
dered hell in the common version, it would be absurd 
to understand it as denoting the place of the damned, 
whether the expression be interpreted literally of David 
the type, or of Jesus Christ the antitype, agreeably to 

departed is under eroaod 1" We shall see afterwards, from Dr. Campbell 
biowelf, and Whitby, that this is m heathen notion. Mr. Stuart connrms 
this. 



* THE WORD SHEOL. 17 

its principle and ultimate object." — ^I have made this 
knig quotation firom Dr. Campbell at the outset for sev- 
eral reasons. 

1st, It shows that Sheol of the Old Testament, and 
Hades of the New, both translated by our EngUsh word 
hell, did not originally signify a place of misery for the 
wicked, but simply the state of the dead, without regard 
to the goodness or badness of the persons, their happi* 
ness or misery. It follows of course, that wherever 
those two words are used in Scripture, though translated 
by the word hell, we ought not to understand a place of 
misery to be meant by the inspired writers. 

2d, It establishes also, that our English word hell, 
in its primitive signification, perfectly corresponded to 
Hades and Sheol, and did not, as it now does, signify a 
place of misery. It denoted only what was secret or 
concealed. What we wish to be noticed here, is, that 
people generally have connected the idea of misery 
with the word hellj but it is evident that it is a very 
Mse association. It is beyond all controversy, that the 
word heU is changed from its original signification to ex- 
press this idea. 

3d, It is also obvious from the above quotation, and 
fixHn other authors which might be quoted, that Ge- 
henna is the word which is supposed to express the idea 
of a place of endless misery. The correctness of this 
opinion we shall consider afterwards. At present it 
need only be observed, that if the opinion be correct, it 
is somewhat surprising that the English word hell n\ust 
assume a new sense to accomodate • it with a name. 
Nor, was this the original sense of the term Gehenna, 
as I shall show afterwards. 

4th, I add, in regard to the statements made in th^ 
above quotation, that they are not opinions broached by 
a Umversalist, in support of his system. Np ; they are 
the statements of Dr. Campbell, who was not a Univer- 
salist. Nor are they his own individual singular opin- 



18 AN INQUIRY INTO 

ions, but are now admitted as correct by learned ortho- 
dox critics and commentators. In Mr. E. J. Chapman's 
critical and explanatory notes, we find very similar state- 
ments made, on Acts ii. 27, which, to save room I for- 
bear transcribing. 

5th, It is now generally conceded, that the doctrine 
oi endlest punishment, is not taught in the Old Testa- 
ment. Mr. Stuart does not pretend that it is taught 
there ; but begs of his readers to grant, that probabb/, 
future puniahment may be taught in five texts. Was 
it then brought to light by the gospel ? This cannot pos- 
sibly be true ; for the fact is indisputable, that the doc- 
trine of endless ■punishment was current among the hea- 
then nations, long before the appearance of Jesus Christ. 
Who then I ask, revealed this doctrine to the heathen 
nations, yet left the Jewish nation in ignorance cfflicem- 
ing it ? If it is said, it originated in early revelations 
which are now lost, I ask, how happened it, that the 
heathen knew so mucli, and the Jews so little about 
them? And if Moses, learned in all the wisdom of the 
E^ptiaos, believed that the doctrine of endless misery 
originated in lost revelations, why did he not teach it in 
his writings ? But how could he refrain from teaching 
it, had he believed it true ? The Jews could not avoid 
endless misery, for they knew nothing about it, they 
died, went down to hell, and the torments of the place, 
give them the first notice that such misery awaited them. 
If they did know any thing about it, they might thank 
the heathen around them for the information ; notwith- 
standing God had prohibited intercourse with them, at 
leanting doctrines from them. 

As the doctrine of endless punishment, being taught 
ifi d)e Old Testament, is abandonfld, our attention must 
bediiectbd to the inquiiy, does it teach _/«(«re punish- 
mnt after death ? Is this taught by the term Sheolf 
Let UH examine the passages where it occurs and see? 
I shtf taka them up, in the order they occur in the com- 
mon version. 



THE WORD 8RE0L. 19 

Gen, xxxvii. 35. Jacob, said concerning his son Jo- 
seph — " I will go down into the grave (Sheol), unto 
my son mourning." Grave, is here the correct render- 
ing of Sheol, for surely no one thinks, Jacob believed 
Joseph had gone to hell, and that he also expected to 
go down to the same place of misery. But Dr. Allen 
says — " it is altogether probable, that he (Jacob), had 
reference to the abode of departed spirits, where he 
hoped to meet his son. But our translators by using 
the word grave, have excluded this important and inte- 
resting idea, annihilated the strong hopes of paternal af- 
fection and enlightened piety." But what is it, which 
makes this probable ? for there is not a text in the Bible, 
which says, Sheol, is " the abode of departed spirits,'* 
or even names " departed spirits.'^ 

Gen, xlii. 38. concerning Benjamin Jacob said — ^** If 
mischief befal him by the way in which ye go, then 
shall ye bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the 
grave (Sheol)." Evidently grave, in the same sense 
as the preceding passage. 

Gen. xliv. 29. Jacob again says — ^^ ye shall bring 
down my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave,'^ in the 
same sense as above. 

Gen. xliv. 31. Judah, in making a speech for the 
liberation of Benjamin, said — " thy servants, shall bring 
down the gray hairs of thy servant our father with sor- 
row to the grave (Sheol)." Obviously grave as in the 
three preceeding passages. See the quotation from Dr. 
Campbell above. 

Numb. xvi. 30. Moses said, concerning Korah and 
his company — " but if the Lord make a new thing, 
and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, 
with all that appertain unto them, and they go down 
quick into the pit (Sheol)." If Sheol, here rendered 
pit, means hell in its common acceptation, then Korah, 
his company, and all appertaining to them, went down 
alive there. But what is meant, is explained v. -39, by 



20 AN IN<iUIRT INTO 

''the earth opening her mouth, ^and swallowing them 
up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained 
unto Korah, and all their goods." They were swallow- 
ed up as whole cities have been by an earthquake. Who 
beUeves, that people go down sdive, soul and body to 
heUy or endless misery ? For it is the common opinion, 
no bodies go there until after the resurrection. Be- 
sides—did those persons, houses, and their goods, go 
there with them, for all went down into the pit, what 
ever place this was ? 

Num. xvi. 33. "They and all that appertained to them, 
(i. e. Korah and his company), went down aUve into the 
pit (Sheol) ; and the earth closed upon them : and they 
perished from among the congregation." The sense 
here, is the same as in the passage preceding. But in 
reference to both these passages, it is said by Professor 
Stuart — "that Korah and his company went to the 
world of woe, there can be but little if any reason to 
doubt, considering their character, and the nature of 
their crime." This is being wise above what is written, 
for Moses, nor any other sacred writer, intimates any 
such thing. Mr. Stuart says himself, in the very next 
sente&ce — ^"but the words of Moses in this place, 
seem to refer primarily to the event which was about to 
take place, viz. to Korah and his adherents being swal- 
lowed up alive, and thus going down into the under 
world." Can a particle of evidence be produced, that 
Moses referred to any thmg else ? 

Deut. xxxii. 22. " For a fire is kindled in mine an- 
ger, and shall bum unto the lowest hell, (Sheol), and 
shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on 
fire the foundations of the mountains." Moses is here 
ibretelling Gpd's judgments on the Jewish nation ; and it 
required such a tremendous image, thus to describe 
them ; even a fire, which should bum unto the lowest 
jSKeoZ. The figure of Jire^ is common in Scripture to 
describe (rod's judgments on men ; ^and as on the Jew- 



THE WORD SHEOL. 



21 



isb nation, came all the righteous blood shed on the 
earth, so here the description of their punishment, is 
set forth by a tremendous fire. But if by the lowest' 
helly we understand a place of endless misery, there 
must be three divisions of it, for the lowest hell, sup- 
poses some hells above it, and all these hells must be 
burnt through for this fire to reach it. But who be- 
lieves this ? Besides, it may be asked, was David ever 
in tbis lowest helll For he says to God — " thou hast 
delivered my soul (me) from the lowest hell," Ps, 
Ixxxvi. 13. I may add, no inthnation is here given, or 
any where else, that in this lowest hell any persons are 
suffering misery there. 

1 Sam. ii. 6. " The Lord killeth, and maketh alive: 
he bringeth down to the grave, (Sheol) and bringeth 
up." Grave, or state of the dead, is evidently the 
meaning of Sheol here, as the two parts of the verse 
show. The words in the last part — " hecbringeth down* 
to Sheol and bringeth up," answers to the words in 
the first, " the Lord killeth, and maketh alive." In- 
deed, who believes, that the Lord brings men up firom 
Sheol, or hell, in the popular sense of this term ? and 
yet, if Sheol means hell, it is here plainly asserted. 

2 Sam. xxii. 6. "The sorrows of AcZ/, (Sheol), com- 
passed me about ; the snares of death prevented me,'* 
or, came upon me. The parallelism here, shows what 
is meant. In the first part of the verse — " the sorrows 
of hell, (Sheol), compassed me about," is explained by 
the second — "the snares of death prevented me.'* 
" Sorrows of Sheol," and " snares of death," express the 
same idea. See on Ps. xviii. 5, below. 

1 Kings ii. 6. David charged Solomon thus — "do 
therefore according to thy wisdom, and let not his 
(Joab) hoar head go down to the grave (Sheol) in 
peace," let him die, according to the laws, a violent ^ 
death for the crimes he hath committed. Solomon, 
could not send Joab to hell. 



22 AN INQ,UIRT INTO 

1 Kings ii. 9. David charged Solomon thus concem- 
u^ Shimei — "But his hoar head bring thou down to 
the grave (Sheol) with blood." No fault, is generally 
found with David, in charging^ Solomon respecting Joab, 
but he has oftep been blamed for cruelty towards Shim- 
ei. I quote the following from the Missionary Maga- 
zine, vol. 7, p. 333, which places his conduct in a dit 
ferent light. It is there said, — " David is here repre- 
sented in our English version as finishing his life with 
giving a command to Solomon to kill Shimei ; and to 
kill him on account of that very crime, for which he 
had sworn to him by the Lord, he would not put hira 
to death. The behavior thus imputed to the king and 
prophet, should be examined very carefully, as to the 
ground it stands upon. When the passage is duly con- 
sidered, it will appear highly probablef that an injury has 
been done to this illustrious character. It is not un- 
c(»nmon in thb Hebrew language to omit the negative 
la a second part of a sentence, and to consider it as re- 
peated, when it has been once expressed, and is follow- 
ed by the connecting particle. The necessity of so 
very considerable an alterati<Hi, as inserting the particle 
NOT, may be here confirmed by some other instances. 
Thus Psalm i. 6. ' The ungodly shall not stand in the 
judgment, nok (the Hebrew is and, signifying and not) 
sinners in the congregation of the righteous.' Psalm 
IX. 18: xxxviii. 1: Ixxv. 5. Prov. xxiv. 12. If, 
then, there are many such instances, the question is 
whether the negative, here expressed in the former part 
of David's command, may not be understood as to be 
repeated in the latter part ? And if this may be, a 
strong reason will be added why it should be so inter- 
preted. The passage will ruij thus: * Behold, thou 
nast with thee Shimei, who cursed me : but I sware to 
him by the Lord, saying, I will not put thee to death* by 
the sword. Now, therefore, hold him not guiltless, 
(for thou art a wise man, and knowest what thou 



THE WORD SHEOL. 93 

ougbtest to do unto him,) but bring not down his hoa- 
ry head to the grave with blood.' Now, if the lan- 
guage Itself will admit this construction, the sense thus 
dyen to the sentence derives a very strong support 
&om the context. For, how did Solomon understand 
this charge ? Did he kill Shimei in consequence of it? 
Certainly he did not. For, after he had immediately 
ccHnmanded Joab to be slain, in obedience to his father, 
he sends for Shimei, and, knowing that Shimei ought 
to be well watched, confines him to a paticular spot in 
Jerusalem for the remainder of his life. 1 Kings, ii. 
36—42. See Kennicotfs Remarks, p. 131." Those 
wbo wish to see this verse noticed at considerable 
length, may oonsult the Christian's Magazine, vol. i p. 
172 — 181. David, could not surely mean, respecting 
either Joab or Shimei, their hoary head bring thou 
down to endless misery with blood. 

Job vii. 9. << As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth 
away : so he that goeth down to the grave (Sheol) shall 
come up no more." The next verse, explains the wri- 
ter's meaning ; — '^ he shall no more return to his house, 
neither shall his place know him any more." 

Job xi. 8. '< It is high as heaven ; what canst thou 
do ? Deeper than hell (Sheol) : what canst thou 
know ?" The antithesis here shews, what is meant by 
Shedly for it is contrasted with the heaven for height. 
The sea, or abyss, is probably alluded to. See verse 7. 
No man can by seacching find out God, any more than 
he can measure the height of heaven, or the depth of 
the abyss. Sheol included the abyss, for it was the 
state of all the dead, whether in the abyss, grave or 
tomb, etc. 

Job xiv. 13. ^^ Oh that thou wouldest hide me in the 
grave (Shed)." The context shews. Job longed for' 
death, to find rest in the grave. No man supposes. Job 

E rayed, that God would hide him in the place of end- 
»ss misery. 



114 AN INQ,UIRT INTO 

Job xvii. 13. " If I wait, tlie grave (Sheol) is mine 
house.!' I must die at last, and I may as well die now, 
as at any future period. 

Job xvii. 16. " They shall go down to the bars of 
the pit, (Sheol), when, our rest together is in the dust.'* 
The grave or sepulchre, is here evidently referred to 
by Sheol rendered pit. Corruption and the worms 
were to be with Job there, which he explains to be 
" in the dust." Not surely in hell, or endless misery. 

Job xxi. 13. '* They spend their days in wealth, and 
in a momept go down to the grave (Sheol)." Our 
translators understood Sheol here to mean grave, and 
have rendered it so ; and the fact stated, we see daily 
occuring around us. This, is the first of Professor 
Stuart's five texts, in which he thinks, Sheol — " may 
designate the future world of woe" But he places 
little dependence on it, for he says — " Job xxi. 13, is 
not altogeter so probable as to afford entire satisfaction. 
Verses, 17, 18, 21, 30 — 33, it may be alleged, seem 
rather to incline the mind to construe Sheol in v. 13 as 
meaning grave; and so our translators have done." 
The general usage of Sheol, by his own confession, is 
also opposed to construing it otherwise than grave. 

Job xxiv. 19. " Drought and heat consume the s^^ow 
waters ; so doth the grave, (Sheol), those which have 
sinned." This is true of the grave ; but does hell, the 
world of woe, consume those which have sinned ? 

Job xxvi. 6. "Hell (Sheol) is naked before him, 
and destruction hath no covering." What is called heU 
or Sheol in the first part of the verse, is called destruc- 
tion in the last. Jlell here, has the sense of grave, as 
in the apostles creed, and other texts. 

Psal. vi. 5. For in death there is no remembrance of 
thee ; in the grave, (Sheol), who shall give thee thanks." 
The parallelism here shows, that grave is the meaning 
of SheoL The first part of the verse, " in death there 
is no remembrance of thee," explains what is meant in 



THE WORD SHEOI.. 95 

the last, "in the grave (Sheol) who shall give thee 
thanks." Did Pavid expect to go to the world of 
woe? And who ever supposed, it was a place for 
praising God ? 

Ps. ix. 17. "The wicked shall he turned into hell, 
rSheol), and all the nations that forget God." This is 
me second text, on which Professor Stuart depends, 
that " Sheol may designate the future world of woe,^' 
But probably perceiving, that the context stood opposed 
to such a view of it, he passes it without remark. Dr. 
Allen gives this text up as teaching future punishment. 
He says — -"But probably the punishment expressed, 
is cutting off from hfe, destroying from the earth, by 
some special judgment, and removing to the invisible 
place of the dead." But there is no text in which the 
word Sheol occurs, which has been more frequently . 
quoted than this, to prove that by hell, is meant a place 
of misery for the wicked. The wicked are the persons 
spoken of, and they are said to be turned into hell, with 
all the nations that forget God. Plausible as this ap- 
pears, we have only to consult the context, ^to see that 
no such idea was intended by the writer. The Psalm 
in which the words stand, is treating of God's temporal 
judgments upon the heathen nations. We think if 
verses 15 — 20, are consulted, this will sufficienly ap- 
pear. What leads people to think, that this passage 
refers to eternal misery, is, the false idea which they 
have attached to the word hell. But surely no one, 
who has attended to all the texts, can continue to be- 
lieve that Sheol here, has such a meaning. It is the 
same hell into which the wicked are turned, which 
Jacob said he would go down to Joseph mourning. It 
is the same hell in which the Savior's soul was not left. 
It is the same hell David prayed the.wicked might go 
down quick, or alive into. When I can believe that 
David prayed the wicked might go down alive to a place 
of endless misery, and that Korah and his company did 

3 



\ 



36 AN INQUIRY INTO 

go there alive, it is possible I may believe the text be- 
fore us contains the answer to Divides prayer. But it 
will not be easy to produce evidence of this. The fad 
is, it would prove too much. It would prove that all 
the heathen nations must go to eternal misery, a thing 
which few are prepared to admit. Ask the question <rf 
the most zealous advocates of the doctrine, — are all the 
heathen nations turned into eternal misery ? They hefr- 
itate, to say yes. But why do they so ? For if Sheol 
means such a place, the passage is explicit in declarw 
ing it. \ 

It perhaps may be objected to this view of the text, 
— are not all good people turned into Sheol, or the state 
of the dead, as well as the wicked ? why then is it said 
the wicked shall be turned into hell with all the nations 
that forget God ? The answer to this is easy. Thou^ 
all good people in David's day, went to Sheol, as w^ll 
as the wicked, yet not in the way he. is here speaking 
of the wicked, David is speaking of God's public judg- 
ments on the heathen, and by those judgments they 
were to be cut off from the earth, or turned into Shecd. 
It is one thing to die, and quite another to be cut off by 
the judgments of God from the earth. I shall only add, 
if all the wicked, yea, all the nations who forgot God 
in those days were turned into a place of endless mise- 
ry, upon what principles are we to justify the charac- 
ter of God, or of good men, for their want of feeling 
towards them, or their exertions to save then! from 
it ? We are told that the times of this ignorance God 
winked at : that he suffered all nations to walk after 
their own ways. If all the heathen nations werq turn- 
ed into a place of endless misery, neither God, nor 
good men felt, spoke, or acted, as if this was true. 

Psal. xvi. 10. '' For thou wilt not leave my soul, 
(me), in hell (Sheol) : neither wilt thou suffer thine 
holy one to see corruption." Peter quotes this text. 
Acts ii. 24 — 32, and applies it to the resurrection oi 



TH£ WORD SHEOL. 27 

Christ from the dead. He was not left in Sheol, or the 
grave. That grave only is meant, seems obvious from 
the next words — " neither wilt thou suffer thine holy 
<Mie to see corruption." On this text Professor Stuart 
says — " Can the soul of Jesus be supposed to have 
been in the world of woe, the place of the damned 1 
I know, indeed, that there are some, who deduce from 
this passage the doctrine of a purgatory, into which 
Christ descended, in order to preach to the spirits who 
are in prison ! But there is no foundation in this text, 
for any such deduction." But is there not, just a$i 
much foundation for such a deduction in this text, as 
there is in any text where Sheol occurs, that it is " a 
world of woe, the place of the damned V^ The bible 
may just as well be quoted to prove a purgatory as. it. 
Where does it teach, that such 2i prison exists ? or what 
text can he adduce, to prove, there are any spirits in 
it to be preached to ? We will thank Mr. Stuart, or 
any other man, to produce proof of these things, from 
scripture. He takes for granted such a prison exists, 
and that there are damned, spirits in it, but lacks in be- 
nevolence, to let Christ go there and preach to them. 
But if one of these things, is believed without scripture 
authority, why not all of them ? 

Ps. xviii. 5. "The sorrows of hell, (Sheol), com- 
passed me about ; the snares of death prevented me." 
See on 2 Sam. xxii. 6, above for the san:ie sense of 
sheol. In both places, and in others, where Sheol is 
rendered hell, nothing but the popular sense attached 
to this word, leads people to think of a place of future 
punishment. It would have been well, if Sheol had in 
all cases been left untranslated, for then people would' 
have looked to the context for the meaning of the 
writer. 

Ps. XXX. 3. " O Lord, thou hast brought up my soul 
(me) from the grave (Sheol) : thou hast kept me alive, 
tnat I should not go down to the pit." The parallel- 



28 AN INQUIRY INTO 

ism in this verse, shows its meaning ; for what is ex- 
pressed in the first part, is explained in the second. 
Was the writer ever in helL the world of woe ? And 
was he ever brought up jfrom it ? 

Ps. xxxi. 17. " Let the wicked be ashamed, and let 
them be silent in the grave (Sheol)." On this text I 
ask 1st, If Sheol means hell, the world of future pun- 
ishment, how could David or any good man pray, " let 
the wicked be silent in this hell ?" In this case, Da- 
vid was nothing behind the bold blasphemer, who sends 
his companions off to hell with his prayers and curses. 
But 2d. If Sheol means hell, did David think it a place 
of silence, for he says — " let the wicked be ashamed, 
and let them be silent in SheoV^ No one believes 
now, hell is a place of silence, for it is said to be a 
place, where the wicked are weeping, and wailing, and 
gnashing their teeth. This does not look, as if it was 
a place of much silence. But 3d. Admit David here 
only means, let the wicked be ashamed, and let them 
be silent in the grave ; how could he ever pray for 
this as a good man, if he believed in any future pun- 
ishment ; for just so sure as they were turned into 
the grave, their souls went to hell to be punished, ac- 
cording to the common opinions. By implication then, 
if he believed in any future punishment, he prayed, the 
wicked might go to hell to suffer it. What good man 
now, prays so ? 4th. But if we admit, David knew 
of no future punishment after death, all difficulty is 
removed. As a good man, and a king, David might 
pray, that the wicked might be cut off by death ; or 
as Mr. Stuart expresses it — " that the justice due to 
them in a civil respect, might be executed." 

Ps. xlix. 14. ^* Like sheep they are laid in the grave, 
(Sheol) ; death shall feed on them ; and the upright 
shall have dominion over them in the morning; and 
their beauty shall consume in the grave, (Sheol) from 
their dwelling." Sheol occurs here twice ; and is prop- 



THE WORD SHEOL. 29 

erly . rendered grave by our translators, for are any 
sheep laid in hell, the taorld of woe 1 or, does any 
person's beauty consume there ? 

Ps. xlix. 15. " But God will redeem my soul (me) 
fix)m the power of the grave, (Sheol), for he shall re- 
ceive me." Evidently grave here as in the last verse, 
for in what sense could David be be under the power 
of the world of woe, and was redeemed from it ? But 
on this text Mr. Stuart says — " whether under this 
imagery more than a literal meaning is not conveyed 
as also Iq the example above, (Ps. xlix. 14), will be 
matter of inquiry in the sequel." But all he says in 
the sequel, is this, p. 113. "Let any one now, in ad- 
dition to these texts, carefully inspect such passages as 
Num. xvi. 30, 33. Deut. xxxii. 22. 1 Kings, ii. 6. 
Ps. xlix. 14, 15. Is. V. 14, and then say, whether the 
Hebrew believing in a state of future retribution, did 
not connect such language, in his own thoughts, with 
the apprehension of fiiture misery in regard to those 
of whom he thus spoke." But the very question in 
dispute is, did the Hebtew " believe in a state of fu- 
ture retribution V^ Until this point is settled, it is 
premature to inquire, " whether the Hebrew did connect 
such language in his own thoughts, with the apprehen- 
sion of future misery in regard to those of whom he 
thus spoke." It is surprising that a man of Mr Stu- 
art's attainments, should assume the very question in de- 
bate. Besides, who can tell what the Hebrew thought, 
or connected with his thoughts, but by what he has ex- 
pressed in the language he used ? 

Ps. Iv. 15. "Let death seize upon them, and let 
them go down quick into hell (Sheol)." Mr. Stuart 
on this text says — " there is a serious difficulty in the 
way of supposing the Psalmist to have prayed, that his 
enemies should go down suddenly to the world of future 
woe. Here, however, our English version renders 
sheol by heU; but why this should be done here, and 

3* 



30 AN INQUIRY INTO 

not in Ps. xxxi. 17, it would be difficult to say." This 
is indeed a serious difficulty^ which we have noticed in 
Ps. xxxi. 17, above. Besides, we have shown there, 
that there is no possible way of getting rid of it, but 
by admitting, Sheol does not in any case designate the 
world of woe ; and, that David did not believe in any 
punishment after death. 

Ps. Ixxxvi. 13. " Great is thy mercy toward me ; 
and thou hast delivered my soul (me) from the lowest 
hell, (Sheol)." On this text, Mr. Stuart says — "the 
next verse seems plainly to indicate, that deliverance 
from temporal death is here meant. It runs thus: 
' O. God ! the proud are risen up against me ; and the 
assemblies of violent men have sought after my soul, 
(my life), and have not set thee before them.' The 
word nephish which our translators have here redered 
soul, is a common Hebrew word for life, and is very 
often so rendered. It clearly has that meaning here ; 
for soul, in any other sense than this, David's enemies 
surely did not seek after. Consequently, we must con- 
clude, that the deliverance commemorated in v. 13, is a 
deUverance from the grave, or under-world, i. e. from 
Death. By saying lowest grave or sepulchre, the writer 
designates a most terrible and cruel death, or a death 
of the most shocking nature." This is very much to 
the purpose. Let the reader notice, that lowest sheol, 
hell, grave, or sepulchre, simply means by Mr. Stuart's 
own confessions, " a death of the most shocking na- 
ture,^^ 

Ps. Ixxxviii. 3. " My soul is full of trouble ;' my life 
draweth near unto the grave, (Sheol). Certainly grave 
is here the proper rendering of Sheol, for the writer 
surely did not mean to say, his Hfe drew near unto hell 
or endless misery. The context decides the sense of 
Sheol to be grave, for in v. 4, he says — " I am counted 
with them that go down into the pit;" and in v. 5, 
" like the slain that lie m the grave." Yea, says v. 6, 



/. 



THE WORB SHEOL. 31 

" thou hast laid me in the lowest pit ;" and asks, v. 10, 
" wilt thou show wonders to the dead ?" The phrase, 
" lowest pif^ is equivalent to "lowest hell or Sheol,^* 
Ps. Ixxxvi. 13, above. 

Ps. Ixxxix. 48. " What man is he that Hveth and 
shall not see death ? shall he deUver his soul (Hfe) from 
the hand of the grave (Sheol) ?" The hand of the 
grave, simply means the power of the grave. And the 
Parallelism determines, that Sheol is correctly rendered 
grave. Surely some are delivered from hell, the world 
of woe. I 

Ps. cxvi. 3. " The sorrows of death compassed me, 
and the pains of hell (Sheol) gat hold upon me." The 
" sorrows of death, ^ and '^ pains of hell,^^ are equiva- 
lent expressions. The same sentiment is expressed, 
2 Sam. xxii. 6, and xviii. 5, above, already noticed. 

Ps. cxxxix. 8. " If I ascend up into heaven, thou art 
there ; if I make my bed in hell, (Sheol); behold, thou 
art there." The writer here, surely did not mean to 
say, if I make my bed in hell, the world of woe. This 
langus^e is evidently used, to express the every where 
presence of God, as the context shows. See on some 
texts above. 

Ps. cxli. 7. " Our bones are scattered at the graves' 
(Sheol) mouth." This is true of the grave ; but are 
people s bones scatterd at the mouth of hell, the vforld 
of woe 1 

Prov. i. 12. " Let us swallow them up alive as the 
grave, (Sheol) ; and whole, as those that go down into 
the pit." ' The parallelism, as well as the context, suf- 
ficiently shews, sheol means grave as our translators 
have rendered it. 

Prov. V. 5. " Her feet go down to death ; her steps 
take hold on hell, (Sheol)." The equivalent to-—" her 
steps take hold on Sheol," is, " her feet go down to 
death." Both express the premature or sudden death 
of a lewd woman. The psralelism, is similar here, to 



82 ^ AN INQUIRY INTO 

that in Ps. vi. 5, Pro v. i. 12, and other texts noticed 
already. This is Professor Stuart's third text, in which 
he thinks — " Sheol may designate the future world of 
woe.^* He is correct in saying, this, and Prov. ix. 18, 
have respect to prostitutes, p. 109. But, the aipiment 
he draws from them, is founded in the mistake, that in 
the ancient world — " disease in some of its most awful 
forms," was not as now, a concomitant attending ilhcit 
intercourse. In my reply to his essays, I have fully 
considered this argument, to which I beg leave here, 
and on all his book to refer. It is sufficient here to 
notice, that v. 11 of the context, shows, Mr. Stuart 
must be mistaken. It runs thus—" and thou mourn at 
the last, when thy flesh and thy body are consumed." 
What do these words mean, if " disease in some of its 
most awful forms," was not then a concomitant attend- 
ing illicit intercourse ?" Medical men aver, that such 
a disease is produced without illicit intercourse ; and 
that it no doubt existed in the ancient world, though not 
known then by its modern names. 

Prov. ix. 18. " But he knoweth not that the dead 
are there, and that her guests are in the depths of hell, 
(Sheol)." This is Professor Stuart's fourth text, in 
proof, that 'f Sheol may designate the future world of 
woe,^^ But his argument founded on this text, is drawn 
from the same mistake, as noticed on the preceding text. 
He renders this passage thus — " but he knoweth not 
that the ghosts are there." What ghosts ? Are they 
living beings, disembodied spirits ? Not a word of this 
can be true, by Mr. Stuart's own confessions, for he 
says, p. 121, "a deep region beneath peopled with 
ghosts, is what we do not believe in." Besides, we 
have shown in our reply to his essay's, that the term 
repaim, rendered ghosts, by him, and dead in the com- 
mon version, has no reference to living beings of any 
kind, but to the dead body. 

Prov. XV. 11. "Hell (Sheol) and destruction are be- 



THE WOBD SHEOL. 33 

fore the Lord ; how much more then the hearts of the 
children of men ?" Here Sheol and destruction are 
joined, and plainly refer to the grave, where destruc<- 
tion takes place. If these are obvious to the sight of 
the Lord, much more the hearts of men. 

Prov. xxxiii. 14. "Thou shalt beat him with the 
rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Sheol)." The 
verse which precedes this, "explains what is meant. 
" Withhold not correction from the child." Why ? To 
save his soul from the world of woe ? INfo ; it is add- 
ed, for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not 
die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt de- 
liver his soul (him) from the grave (Shed)." The child, 
will bring himself to a premature death by his wicked 
course of life ; but if you apply- the rod in tune, it will 
drive his folly far from him, and prevent it. But this 
is Professor Stuart's fifth and last text where he thinks— 
" Sheol may designate the future world ofwoe^ Let 
us now hear what he concedes about these texts. He 
says — " it is possible to interpret such texts as Prov. 
V. 5*; ix. 18 ; xxiii. 14, as designating a death violent 
and premature, inflicted by the hand of heaven."^ Thus 
much he concedes respecting three of his texts. Again, 
he says, — " The probability that Sheol designates the 
futiu*e punishment of the wicked, in the passages just 
cited, (all his five texts) depends perhaps in a great 
measure, on the state of knowledge among the He- 
brews^ with regard to fiiture rewards and punishments." 
But were not these very texts quoted to show, what 
was — " the state of knowledge among the Hebrews, 
with regard to fiiture rewards and punishments ?" But 
it is confessed they do not teach this, for their teach- 
ing it, depends in a great measure, on the state of 
knowledge among the Hebrew^, with regard to fiiture 
rewards and punishments," a thing they do not teach. 
If they did teach it, they would not need to depend on 
any thmg else. The texts then, are nothing to Mn 



34 AN INq,UIRY INTO 

Stuart's purpose, even by his own confession, until it is 
proved, the Hebrews did believe as he asserts. He 
even concedes, the texts are suscej^tible of a different 
interpretation. 

Prov. xxvii. 20. " Hell, (Sheol) and destruction are 
never full ; so the eyes of man are never satisfied." 
Here again Sheol and destruction are joined. The grave 
and destruction never s^ they have enough ; so the 
eyes of man are never satisfied with seeing. Why ren- 
der sheol hell here ? 

Prov. XXX. 15, 16. " There are three things that aref 
never satisfied, yea, four things ^ay not, it is enough. 
The grave, (Sheol), and the barren womb; the earth 
that is npt filled with water ; and the fire that saith not, 
it is enough." It is strange, our translators, should have 
rendered Sheol hell in the last text, and render it here 
grave, where the same idea is conveyed. No one can 
suppose, that in either text, Sheol means hell, the world 
of woe, 

Eccles. ix. 10. " Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, 
do it with thy might : for there is no work, nor device, 
nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave, (Sheol), whith- 
er thou goest." No one doubts, that Sheolhere means 
the grave as rendered in the English version, for such 
thmgs could not be said concerning it, if it meant hell a 
place of future punishment. But if it meant in any 
case hell, it was liable to be misunderstood, thus to spesi 
concerning it. 

Cant. viii. 6. " For love is strong as death ; jealousy 
is cruel as the grave (Sheol)." We know that the 
grave is cruel, for it spares neither age nor sex, and is 
a fine figure to describe the effects of strong jealousy. 
But how is it known, that heU, the world of woe is cruel, 
or, that jealousy resembles it? 

Isai. V. 14. ^' Therefore hell (Sheol) hath enlarged 
herself, and opened her mouth without measure : and 
their ^ory, and their pauUitude, and their pcMnp, and he 



THE WORD SHEOL. 85 

that rejoic6th, shall descend into it." All allow, Sheol 
the grave is here personified. It is represented as having 
a mouth, opening it^ wide without measure, to receive 
the wicked with all their pomp and glory. 

Isai. xiv. 9. " Hell, (Sheol), from beneath, is moved 
to meet thee at thy coming : it stirreth up the dead for 
thee, eyen all the chief ones of the earth ; it hath raised 
up from their thrones all the Ifings of the nations." On 
this verse Professor Stuart says — " the prophet is speak- 
ing of the king of Babylon, who was to be slain, and 
when he should go down into the under-world or Sheol 
the ghosts or wmrae of the dead there, would rise up to 
meet him with insult and contumely. Our English ver- 
sion renders Sheol hell. But plainly the region of the 
dead the land of ghosts is here meant ; for in verse, 
18, all the kings of the nations are said to repose in glory 
there, i. e. to lie in their sepulchers, attended with all 
the ensigns of splendor which were deposited around the 
bodies of deceased kings." See in the next passage 
for further remarks. 

Isai. xiv. 15. " Yet thou (the king of Babylon) shall 
be brought down, to hell (Sheol) to the sides of the 
pit." On this text Professor Stuart adds — " the word 
here is most evidently in the same sense as above ; for 
so the parallelism which follows clearly shows, viz. 
" to the sides of the pit." On the two last texts, he 
gives us the following excellent remarks, pp. 121, 122. 
" A deep region beneath, peopled with ghosts, is what 
we do not believe in. Nor is there any more certain- 
ty that it is true, because this method of speaking about 
it in scripture is adopted, than that the sun goes round 
the earth, because they speak of it as doing so. In 
most cases,, it is the language of poetry, which employs 
the popular methods ojf representation. It is poetry 
which gives a kind of life and animation to the inhabit- 
ants of the under-w6rld. Poetry personifies that world. 
So in Isai. v. 14. Prov. xxvii. 20; xxx. 15, 16; i. 12. 



36 ^ AN liirQ,UIRY INTO 

Above all, is this the case, in that most striking passajge, 
Isai. xiv: 9 — ^20 ; (the two last passages), in which all 
commentators are compelled to admit a fictitious or im- 
aginary costume*- Here tlie ghosts rise up firom their 
places of repose, and meet and insult the king of Baby- 
lon, and exult over his fall. All b life and animation^ 
when he goes down into the under-world. Yet who 
was ever misled by this passage, and induced to regard 
it as a passage to be literally understood. But if this 
be very plain, then are other passages of a nature in any 
respect similar, equally plain also." On this quotation 
fix)m Professor Stuart, I have a few remarks to make. 

1st, He explicitly declares, that he has no faith in a 
deep region beneath peopled with ghosts. There is no 
more reason to believe this true, then that the sun goes 
round the earth. But we ask, are not disembodied souls 
or spirits considered ghosts 1 Well, Mr. Stuart believes 
in them. But perhaps his skepticism, does not respect 
their existence, but the place of their habitation ; they 
Tire not in a deep region beneath. Be it so ; we then 
ask — where does he locate them ? Nowhere that I can 
find firom his writings. No, nor does he attempt to 
prove, that they exist any where. 

2d, The Professor tells us — " it is poetry which gives 
a kind of life and animation to the inhabitants of the un- 
der-world. Poetry personifies that world," and in the 
passages he cites, he assures us — "all commentators 
are compelled to admit a fictitous or imaginary costume. 
Here the ghosts rise up firom their places of repose, and 
meet and insult the king of Babylon, and exult over his 
fall. All is life and animation, when he goes down into 
the under-world." Very well. We have then to ask, 
if all this be the language of poetry, where shall Pro- 
fessor Stuart find a text in the Old Testament, which is 
the language of reality, that any persons were aUve in 
Sheol^ or any where else after death ? We do not de- 
mand, what on his system we have a right to demand, 



THE WORD SHEOL. 37 

that he produce a text, which says, persons are punish- 
ed there. No, we only ask him to name the text, 
which teaches, that the king of Babylon, or any other 
person, was in a state of conscious existence after death, 
either in a region beneath, or, in any other region in the 
universe of God. He says — " in most cases it is the ' 
language of poetry, which employs the popular methods 
of representation." If it is not so in every case, he can 
produce the exceptions, where the language of inspira- 
tion, the language of reality, gives to persons after death 
real life and animation. What is proof positive, no 
such texts can be produced, is, Mr. Stuart has not pro- 
duced them. 

3d, If the plainest texts in the whole Bible, which 
represent persons alive after death, are abandoned by 
Mr. Stuart as the mere language of poetry, how is his 
system to be supported ? He. has abandoned them, and 
we are confident,, he has none half so good as they are, 
to produce in support of it. But we doubt, if he would 
have abandoned them as the language of poetry, if it had 
only been said in one of them, concerning the king of 
Babylon or any other person — " and in Sheol he lifted 
up his eyes being in torment," This would have alter- 
ed the passages, from o. fictitious and imaginary cos- 
tumCy to solemn reality. No doubt but this would have 
been said, had the poets then known, that in the He- 
brew Sheol "there was a Tartarus, a place of torment. 
But at that period, the poets had not given such a pop- 
ular representation to Sheol. We shall see afterwards, 
that the heathen Greeks, gave to Hades this popular 
representation ; this fictitious and imaginary costume, 
which Mr. Stuart adopts without scruple as the truth of 
God. It is a strange inconsistency to say, when the 
king of Babylon goes down to Sheol, and all is life and 
animation on his arrival, this is only fiction, and when 
the rich man Luke xvi. 23, goes down to Hades, and 
«J1 is life and animation, this is solemn reality. Does 

4 



38 AN 1NQ.UIRY INTO \ 

not Mr. Stuart admit, Sheol and Hades are only the 
Hebrew and Greek names for the same place ? And 
is he ignor^t, how Hades came to differ from She^ 
respecting such a representation ? We shall refresh his 
memory about this m the sequel. 

Isai. xxviii. 15. ^^ Because ye have said, we have 
made a covenant with death, and with hell, (Sheol), are 
we at agreement." The persons mentioned, &iiicied 
themselves so secure, that they say, " with Sheol the 
grave we are at agreement." They add — " when the 
overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come 
unto us : for we have made hes our refuge, and under 
falsehood have we hid ourselves." But thus their way 
was their folly, for it is added, 

Issd. xxviii. 18. " Your covenant with death, shall 
be disannulled, and your agreement with hell, (Shed[) 
shall not stand." No covenant can be made with deatn 
and the grave, all must die, all go to Sheol. Hence 
it is added — " when the overflowing scourge shall pass 
through, then ye shall be trodden down by it," 

Isai. xxxviii. 18. "For the grave (Sheol) cannot 
praise thee ; death cannot celebrate thee : they that go 
down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth." Here, 
what is expressed by the words — " the grave (Sheol) 
cannot praise thee," is explained by the next words 
— ^" death cannot celebrate thee." And is still further 
explaned by the words — " they that go down into the 
pit cannot hope for thy truth." On this text Mr. Stu- 
art says — " the meaning here is plain, viz, how can the 
dead, or those in the sepulchre praise thee ? Surely 
we cannot well suppose Hezekiah means to say here, 
that hell, i. e. the world of torment, cannot praise God. 
He did not expect to perish forever, when he should 
die. But when he says, " Sheol cannot praise thee," 
does he mean, that aAer death there is no ability to 
praise God, no existance of the powers and capacities 
of the sold ? I think not. It seems to me* clearly ^ that 



' THE WOBD SHEOL. 39 

this IS not his design ; although not a few of the later 
critics have afiirmed it to be so. Shall we represent the 
Hebrews, and a Hebrew monarch enlightened as Heze- 
kiah was, as being more ignorant in respect to futurity 
than the Egyptians ? The people of God, who lived 
under the light of a revelation more ignorant than those 
who were in the midst of Egyptian night ! Believe 
this who will, I must have stronger evidence of its cor- 
rectness than I have yet found in order to give it credit.'* 
On this quotation I have to remark 

1st, Hezekiah "did not expect to perish forever 
when he should die," for like all believers in divine rev- 
elation he hoped for a future life by a resurrection from 
the dead. But did he, or any other person, ever inti- 
mate, that he should praise Grod in Sheol after death? 
Did any one ever say he should be alive there ? No. 
But it was incumbent on Mr. Stuart, to produce some 
declaration, or example from scripture, that in Sheol 
there is " ability to praise God ; an existence of the 
powers and capacities of the soul" to do this. No 
doubt, could this have been found, he would have pro- 
duced it. 

2d, But Mr. Stuart's argument proves too much. It 
will prove, that the transmigration of souls is a scripture 
doctrine, for it was believed by those in Egyptian night. 
I then say to Mr. Stuart in his own words — " shall we 
represent the Hebrews, and a Hebrew monarch enlight- 
ened as Hezekiah was, as being more ignorant respect- 
ing the transmigration of souls than the Egyptians ? 
TTie people of God, who lived under the light of a rev- 
elation, more ignorant than those who were in the midst 
rf Egyptian night ! Believe this who will, I must have 
stronger evidence of its correctness than I have yet found 
in order to give it credit." But does Mr. Stuart think 
the Hebrews, the people of God, believed in the doc- 
trine of transmigration of souls ? 

3d, But Mr, Stuart forgets himself. We shall see 



40 AN INQ,UIRY INTO 

afterwards, that he furnishes us with evidence that the 
Egyptians in the midst of then* night knew all about 
future rewards and punishments, and yet he cannot 
show, that the Hebrews, the people of God, did know 
this, or that it is taught in the Old Testament. Now, 
how will he, or any other man, be able to account for 
the indisputable fact, that the Egyptians taught this doc- 
trine in the days of Moses and the prophets, yet he 
never taught it in his writings ? If Moses was better 
informed than the Egyptians on this subject, as Mr. Stu- 
art asserts, how happened it, that he gave us no infor- 
mation on the subject ? But 

4th, Mr. Stuart adds — " I regard the simple meaning 
of this controverted place (and of others like it, e. g. 
Ps. vi. 5; XXX. 9; Ixxxviii. 11; cxv. 17; Comp. 
cxviii* 17), as being this, viz. " the dead can no more 
give thanks to God, nor celebrate his praise, among the 
living on earth, and thus cause his name to be glorified 
by them," or thus do him honor before them. So the 
sequel of Isai. xxxviii. 18 ; " the living, the living, he 
shall praise thee ; as I do this day : the father to the 
children shall make known thy truth, i. e. thy faithful- 
ness." This last clause makes the whole plain ; and 
one is ready to wonder, that so much skepticism about 
the views of the Hebrews in regard to a future state of 
existance, could have been eked out of the verse in 
question." No man disputes with Mr. Stuart, that 
" the dead can no more give thanks to God, nor cele- 
drate his praises, among the living on earth." What 
he has got to prove, is, that the dead celebrate God's 
praises in Sheol ; that there people have powers and 
capacities to do this. What scripture writer asserts 
this ? If he cannot produce scripture authority for this, 
is it not rash to assert it ? 

Isai. Ivii. 9. " And thou didst debase thyself even unto 
hell, (Sheol)." Shei>l here evidently means grave ; and 
to be debased even unto Sheol, Hades, or the grave ex- 
presses the lowest state of debasement, or degradation* 



THE WOBD SHEOL. ^ 41 

Ezek. xxxi. 15. " In the day when he went down to 
the grave, (Sheol) I caused a mourning.'* The prophet 
is here speakmg of the death of the king of E^ypt ; and 
Shebl is correctly rendered grave by our translators. 
See on the next passage. 

Eizek. xxxi. 16. '^ I made the nations to shake at the 
sound of his fall, when I cast him down to helly (She- 
ol).*' But why is Sheol rendered hell here, dud grave 
m the verse preceding, for the prophet has not chang- 
ed his subject ? This is a striking example, of the in- 
OQQsistency in the translators, as to their translation of 
Sheol. But there are also many other examples, the 
reader may notice. 

Ezek. xxxi. 17. " They also went down into hell 
(SheoH with him, unto them that be slain with the 
sword. The same subject is continued, as in the two 
preceding verses already noticed, and grave ought to 
have been the rendering of Sheoh 

Ezek. xxxii. 21. " The Strong among the mighty 
shall speak to him out of the midst of hell, (Sheol), 
with them that help hun." This is spoken of the 
King of Egypt, and is simUar to that said Isai. xiv. 9— 
90, concerning the King of Babylon, above noticed. 
Thb is one of the texts, which Mr. Stuart considers the 
lax^iiage of poetry. See in Isai. xiv. 9 — 20, above. 

Ezek. xxxii. 27. " And they shall not lie with the 
mighty that are fallen of the uncircumcised, which are 
gone down to hell, (Sheol), with their weapons of war ; 
and they have laid their swords under their heads." 
Chrave, vcndt, or tomb is the meaning of Sheol here ; 
fir do people carry their weapons of war with them to 
helly the world of woe 1 and, do they lay them under 
dieir heads there ? The allusion is evidently to the 
eostom of bur5ring the hero's implements of war with 
turn. Another text which is only the language of po- 
etiT. See Isai. xiv. 9 — ^20 above. 

Hosea xiiL 14. ^' I will ransom them from the power 

4* 



42 , AN INQ,UIRY INTO 

of the grave ^sheol) ; I will redeem them from death ; 
O death, I will be thy plagues ; O grave (Sheol), I will 
be thy destruction." If Sheol does mean hell, the world 
of woe, it is here plainly declared, that it is to be de- 
stroyed. But if it means grave, this is agreeable to 
scripture, for death and the grave are to be destroy- 
ed, when men are raised from the dead immortal and 
glorious. There is a double antithesis in this passage, 
which show Sheol means grave. The first member 
of the verse, is explained by the second ; and the fourth 
member is explained by the third, Sheol in the first and 
fourth members, answers to death in the second and 
third. 

Amos ix. 2. "Though they dig into hell (Sheol) 
thence shall mine hand take them." People may dig 
down into the lowest grave. But can any person dig 
down to Sheol, if it means the world of woe, heU in 
the common acceptation of this term ? If it does mean 
this in any instance, it is here supposed men may dig 
into it. But can any man seriously believe this ? Be- 
sides, hell after all, must be a region beneath peopled 
with ghosts, Mr Stuart's skepticism on the subject to 
the contrary notwithstanding. 

Jonah ii. 2. " Out of the belly of hell (Sheol) cried 
I, and thou heardest my voice." But how could Jo- 
nah be in hell, the world of woe, for he was only in 
the belly of the fish. He thought his situation, the 
same as if he had been in the grave. And, unless there 
are two or more Sheols or hells, how can it mean both 
grave and world of woe, for all at death go to Sheol. 

Such are all the places where Sheol occurs, in what- 
ever way rendered in our common English version. The 
examples of its usuage are numerous; but numerous 
as they are, I do not find that in a single instance Sheol 
is used to designate hell, the world of woe. To tlus 
conclusion I have come, after patient and repeated in- 
vestigations of the subject. Mr. Stuart's attempt to es- 



THE WORD SHEOL. 43 

tablish a contrary conclusion, only confirms me in my 
own. Indeed, the result of his examination, leaves 
bis mind doubtful as to the truth of his conclusion, that 
Sheol does mean hell in the common use of this word. 
Let us hear him, respeicting the result at which he ar- 
rives ? 

He says, p. 93 — "There can be no reasonable 
doubt, that Sheol does most generally mean the under" 
toorldj the grave or sepulchre, the world of the dead, 
in the Old Testament scriptures. It is very clear that 
there are many passages, where no other meaning can 
reasonably be assigned to it. Accordingly our English 
translators have rendered the word Sheol grave, in 
thirty instan^ces out of the whole sixty-four instances in 
which it occurs in the Hebrew scriptures. In many^ of 
the remaining cases, where they have given a different 
ver3ion of the word, i. e. translated it hell, it is equally 
clear that it should have been rendered, grave or re- 
gion of the dead. This has been clearly shown, by 
producing the instances in the above exhibition of ex- 
amples. In three cases, they have recognised the same 
principle, (at least this seems to have been their view), 
viz. Nimib. xvi. 30, 33. Job xvii. 16, where it is 
translated pit. In regard to most of the cases in which 
they have rendered the word hell, it may be doubtful 
whether they meant thereby to designate the world of 
fature torment. The incongruity of such a rendering, 
at least in not a few cases, has been already pointed 
out, in the citations of the respective examples above, 
and therefore need not be here repeated. The in- 
constancy with which they have someitmes rendered 
the word Sheol, in the same connection and with the 
same sense, is a striking circumstance, which cannot 
but be regarded with some wonder by an attentive in- 
quirer. Nor is this always to be attributed to different 
translators, (who are known to have been employed in 
making the English version) ; but the same traslator has 



44 ▲N.INQ.UIRT INTO 

been occai^ionally inconsistant mih himself; 6. g. Ezek, 
xxxi. 15, c(»npared with Ezek. xxxi ; 16, 17." 

Such are Mr. Stuart's own frank confessions respect* 
ihg the term Sheol; aild how &i the result of his 
investigations differs from mine, let the reader judge. 
Biit it will no doubt be said, does not professor Stuart 
contend, that there are at least five texts, ^' in which 
Sheol may designate the world of woe ?" We an- 
swer yes ; but let us now see the result of his investi- 
gation of thep ? As the conclusion of this whole matter, 
he says p. 114, — ^'^ The sum of the evidence from the 
Old Testament in regard to Sheol, is, that the Hebrews 
did probably, m some cases, connect with the use of 
this word, the idea of misery subsequent to the death 
of the body." Mr Stuart puts these words b capital 
letters, no doubt to make them the more conspicuous. 
But with or without this parade of capitals, it is conspic- 
uous enough, that all he contends for is, a mere proba^ 
hUity^ that Sheol in some cases does mean what he says 
it does. Or rather, " The Hebrews did probably in some 
cases, connect with the use of this word, the idea of mis- 
ery subsequent to the death of the body." It is obvious, 
this probioility, is not founded on the original significa- 
tion of the term Shoel; its general scripture usuage; 
or the five texts which he deemed most to his purpose. 
No ; he allows Sheol originally signified the grave or 
state of the dead ; and that the general usuage of 
Sheol is in favor of my views, is obvious ftota his 
own statements. Besides, the five texts on which he 
places his dependence, are susceptible of a different in- 
terpretation firom the one he has given them, by bis 
own confession. It will then be adced, on what does 
Mr. Stuart found \i)s probability that Sheol in some 
texts means heU^ the world of woe 1 We answer, it is 
founded cm asserticxas ; begging the question of his read- 
ers ; and principally on the foUowing assumption — ^tbat 



THE WORD SHEOL. 4& 

the Hebrews in some cases, when they used the term 
Sheol, had in their minds the idea of future punishmenL 
But^ he has not produced a single text to show, that 
they had such an idea in their minds, and we are con- 
fident he is. unable to produce it. 

Mr. Stuart showed his sagacity, in making some shew 
of defending the doctrine of future punishment, from 
the term Shoel. This, is the foundation of the whole 
superstructure of punishment after death. If it gives 
way, the whole falls to irrecoveraWe ruin. If a Tar- 
tarus is not found in Sheol, it cannot be found in JSa- 
des its corresponding word in the Greek, except on hea-. 
then authority. And we shall see on Mr. Stuart's own 
authority, Gehenna did not origmally mean Tartarus^ 
but came through a superstitious notion, to designate 
heU the world of woe. This Tartarus, this world of 
wo€y was first invented by men, and then terms were 
mvented, or words had new senses affixed to them, to 
designate it. It would be alarming, firankly to state, 
that Sheol hsjjua.o Tartarus in it. People would nat- 
urally ask — hSa the ancient Hebrews no AeZZ, no 
world of woe ? And the conclusion would soon come 
to be drawn,^ why should we have one ? Of course, it is 
of the last importance to contend; the Hebrews had a 
Tartarus in their Sheoly for if this was abandoned, no 
other word, no other text in the Old Testament, fur- 
nishes the shs^dow of a foundation for it. 

The reader must have noticed, that in the texts 
above, Sheol is often rendered by the word hell, which 
to most ears, conveys the sound of terror and dismay. 
But he has also seen, that the word hell, in its or- 
i^al signification, conveyed no such terror. Mr. Stu- 
art confesses, that in a great many instances, it is a very 
improper rendering of Sheol. Let us hear him a little 
farther respecting the word hell. He says, pp. 113, 
114 — " On the whole, it is to be regretted that our En- 
glish translation has given occasion to the remarks, that 



4S AN IH4ITIKT UTTO 

those who made it have inteDded to impose <m the: 
leaden, in any case, a sense di^rent from that of tb 
ongica] Hebrew. The inconstancy mth which the 
have rendered the word Sheol, even in cases of th 
same nature, must cAriously^ afibrd s<»ne apparei 
Dound Aht this objection against their version of i 
But I cannot persuade myself, that men of so mucb il 
t^rity as the translators plainly were, and, I may adi 
of so much critical skill and acumen also, would unde 
take to mislead their readers in any point, where it isi 
easy to make corrections. I am much more inclined 1 
believe, that in their day the word hell had not acquirei 
so exclusively as at present, the meaning of world t 
Jutare mutry. There is plain evidence of this, : 
wbtt is called the Apostles creed ; which says • 
Christ, (after his crucifixion), that he descended iff 
heUl surely the Protutant English Chmrth did a 
mean to aver that the soul of Christ went to the woti 
of voe ; nor that it went to Purgatory. They did a 
believe either of these doctrines. Sell then means, : 
this document, the vnder-world, the world of the dea 
And so it has been construed, by the most intellige: 
critics of the English Church. With this view of tl 
meaning of the word keU, as employed in past time 
we may easily account for it, why it has been so oRt 
employed as the translation of Skeol. This view 
the subject, also, enaUes us to acquit the translato 
of any collusion in regard to this word ; and to acqt 
them in this respect, does seem to be an act of simp 
justice, due to their ability, their integrity, and uprigo 
ness." 

Mr. Stuart here makes a very handsome apology, f 
the tiuukton of our common version. " In tbeir di 
the word heU bad not acquired, so exclusively as 
ptesent, tbe meamng of world of Jvture mtery," 
pntnt cf this he very properiy ref^ to the use of tt 
^»IB in the Apostles creed ; and might also have appei 



I 

I 

THE WORD SHEOL. 47 

ed to the maipnal readings, in our English translation. 
But we have two or three remarks to make about this. 
1st, Who has been so kind, as to make wiyrld of future 
misery the exclusive sense of heU, since the c(»nmon 
translaticm was made ? for now, it is used in no other 
sense but this. We have been improving the wrong 
way sinpe that period, for 2d, I ask, why should hell 
have the sense of " loorld of futwre misery " at all, for 
certainly this was not its original significati(»i, as is al- 
lowed by Dr. Campbell, Parkhurst, and many others. 
Who then first gave to diis word such a meaning ? Not 
God, but probaMy the poets gave a similar sense to thb 
term as to Hades. But 3d, Is it correct, is it honest, to 
attach such a new sense to the term AeZZ, making it a 
bugbear to fireighten women, and children, and men who 
know no better ? This subject, if it was only generally 
examined, would put an end to people's terrors about 
eternal hell torments. The confessions of Mr. Stuart, 
will help to open people's eyes, that hell^ is not exactly 
what they have supposed it to be. 

I have now, finished, what Dr. Campbell called an 
endless labors namely, to illustrate by an enumeration 
t£ all the passages in tibe Old Testament where Sheol is 
found, that it does not designate hell in the c(»nmon 
usage of this term. I shall briefly advert to some facts 
and observations which have occured to me in my ex- 
amination of the above passages. 

1st, In no passage is Sheol represented as a place of 
fire or tormsnt. Nothing of this kind stands connected 
with it in the Old Testament. It is firequently repre- 
sented as a place of darkness, silence, ignorance, in^ 
sensibility y but never as a place of pain and misery, 
arising from torment by fire. But how hsippens this to 
be the case, if there was in the Hebrew Sheol a Tar- 
tarusy as Mr. Stuart supposes, for all know Tartarus is 
represented as a place of fire and torment. So he rep- 
resents his heU, for he calls it '' the lake o( fire.'' And 



48 AN INQUtRT INTO 

also positively asserts — " That in hades, Sheol, accord- 
mg to the views of the Hebrews, there was a place of 
torment." But from no text in which Sheol occurs, 
. does he attempt to shew a vestige of evidence for such 
an assertion. No evidence for this can be produced. 
On the contrary, It will he shewn afterwards, how the 
later Hebrews came to include in Sheol a Tartanu, 
which reflects no great honor on the doctrine of hell 
torments, for which Mr. Stuart contends. 

3d, It is an indisputable fact, that oulm rendered ev- 
erlasting, for ever, etc. is never connected with Sheol 
in any shape whatever. For example, you never read 
of and everlasting Sheol or hell. So far from this, we 
are told Sheol is to be destroyed, Hos. xiii. 14. But 
supposing we did read of an everlaiting Sheol, and ev- 
erlasting punishment in it, this would not prove either 
of endless duration, for this term is often apphed to 
things, yea to punishment not of endless duration, as 
shown in my second Inquiry. Mr. Stuart does not 
pretend, that endless punishment is taught in the Old 
Testament. But if the doctrine be true, as he asserts, 
why is it not taught in the OJd Testament, and taught 
mth as much plainness and frequency, as it is by mod- 
em preachers ? An eternal hell and everlasting fire 
there, are common talk now ? But why was there no 
everlasting fire in the Hebrew Sheol7 Why was not 
it eternal ? for Mr. Stuart says There was a Tartarus in 
it. But Mr. Stuart must be sensible, that Sheol m no 
instance, is ever represented as a place of punishment, 
either hy_^re or any thing else. And why should it, for 
3d, No persons are said to be alive in Sheol, to be 
punished in any way, or by any means whatever. The 
only texts, which speak of persons as alive in Sheol, 
- Mr. Stuart positively declares are only the language of 
joetry, they have a fictitious or imaginary costume. 
And no other text has he adduced, or can he adduce, 
to show that Sheol is a recepticle of souls or any living 



THE WORD SHEOL. 49 

beings, bodied or disembodied, rational or irrational. 
On the contrary, we are told without distinction or 
qualification, there " is no work, nor device, nor knowl- 
edge, nor wisdom in Sheol." Eccles. ix. 10. It is rep- 
resented as a place of insensibility — " for the dead 
know nof any thing." And this perfectly accounts for 
Hezekiah saying — "The grave (Sheol) cannot praise 
thee, death cannot celebrate thee ; they that go down 
into the pit cannot hope for thy truth." If men are not 
alive in Sheol, how can they suffer misery there, either 
by fire or any thing else ? How can they either praise 
God or curse him ? How can they be either in happi- 
ness or misery ? But if there was b the Hebrew Sheol, 
a Tartarus, as Mr. Stuart positively asserts, he is bound 
to tell us, why no sacred writer speaks as if there was 
any fire there, for he well knows Tartarus was a place of 
fire. He must also inform us, why the sacred writers 
avoid telling us persons are alive in Sheol, to suffer in 
his Tartarus there ? Yea he must name the text, where 
he thinks Sh^ol included his Tartarus in it. 

4th, Another fact is, the Old Testament writers and 
modem christians, speak very differently about Sheol 
and hell, if both designate the same thing, and include 
in them a place of future punishment. I shall merely 
give a specimen of their disagreement. Notice then 
1st, How the inspired writers in those days, and good 
men in these, speak about Sheol or hell, in regard to 
themselves, Jacob, Job, and others, speak of going to 
hell, and expecting it as a thing of course, which they 
could not avoid. Yea, Job, prays to be hid in hell. 
I need not be more particular, for the texts above show, 
what were the views and feelings of the very best of 
men in those days about this. But I ask, is there a 
Christian in the world, who, in the present day speaks, 
and prays about hell, as those Old Testament saints did ? 
But why not ? The reason, I think is obvious. In 
those days Sheol or hell, did not as in these, signify a 

5 



50 AN INQUIRY INTO 

place of punishmeat] but the state of the dead. la 
these days, when Chns^ans apeak about hell, they al- 
' ways mean a place of endless misery for the wicked* 
The obvious reason of such difierence is, that we have 
affixed a vety difierent sense to this word from what 
they did. If we are to understand the Scriptures cor- 
rectly, we must ascertain what sense the original wiiteis 
attached to the words they used, without regarding the 
sense men may have given them, since Revelation was 
completed; What right have we, or any one else, to 
alter the sense of the words used by the Holy Spirit ? 
2d, How the inspu:ed tvriters in those days, and pious 
people in these, speak about hell to the wicked. Not 
an instance can I find, where it is intimated, that any 
such went to hell, a place of misery. Both good and 
bad went to Sheol, but not a word is said, that this was 
such a place as people now think hell to be. If the 
Old Testament saints entertained the same ideas about 
hell, as most Christians do in our day, I wish some 
person would rationally and scripturally account to me 
also for the following facts. 

1st, If their belief was the same as in our day, why 
do we never find them express that belief about eternal 
punishment, as is now done in books, and sermons, and 
conference meetings, and in common conversation. No 
man can possibly deny the vast difference between their 
lai^uage, and the common language now used upon this 
subject. If the language is so different, is it not a 
proof, that this invention of new language arose from 
the unscriptural doctrine that hell was a place of end- 
less misery J An unseriptusal doctrine always gives rise 
to imscriptural language ; for the words of Scripture, 
are the very best which could be chosen to express the 
will of God to men. That doctrine is not of^ God, or 
the man who contends for it, has a. wrong view of it, 
who thinks, that the words of Scripture are not suffi- 
ciently definite m expresang it. 7^ man who can 



THE WOBB 8HE0L. 51 

tmd siimlar ideas, and similar language m the Old Tes* 
ttment, as are in common use in our day about a plaee 
eS eternal misery, must have read his Bible with more 
attenti(m than I have done. After repeated and care- 
ful perusals of it, I frankly confess my inability to find 
either such ideas or language. I ask then, if the Old 
Testament writers had any such ideas, why did they not 
express them ? I ask further, if they never expressed 
such ideas, how do we know that they had them ? 

2d, How is it to be accounted for, that the fears and 
feelings dmd exertions of good people under the old 
dispensation^ were so different from the fears and feel- 
ings, and exertions of Christians in our day, about 
saoing men from hell 7 It was no object of fear, of 
feeling, or o! exertion in those days. In these, it is the 
ultimate object, of the fears and feelings and exertions 
of the religious community. To begin with their fears ; 
I do not find that they express any, and it is fair to 
conclude that they had none. If they had any fears, 
I have no doubt that on some occasion or other they 
would have expressed them. As I do not find them 
expressed, I cannot produce any examples of their fears 
about their children, theii* relations, their neighbors, or 
the world at large, going to eternal misery. — As to their 
feelings, I do not find a sigh heaved, a tear shed, a groan 
Uttered, a prayer offered, nor any exertions made, as if 
they believed men were exposed to endless misery in a 
future state. We see parents, and others, deeply af- 
fected at the loss of their children and fiiends by death. 
We see pious people deeply grieved on account of their 
disobedience to God's laws, but where do we find any 
expressions of feeling, arising from their belief, that 
such persons would lift up their eyes in endless misery ? 
I find nothing of the kind expressed, either in the way 
of anticipation before death, or after such persons had 
been removed from the world. Now, is it not strange, 
that all this should be the state of the fears and feelings 



53 AN INHUIBr INTO 

of good people, if they did believe endless misery was 
to be the portion of the wicked ? The whole race of 
mankind is swept from the earth by a flood, JVoah and 
his femily excepted ; but, does this good man deplore, 
in any shape, that so many precious souls should be sent 
to hell ? God also destroyed the cities of the plain : 
Abraham intercedes that they might be spared, but used 
no ailment with God, that the people must go to hell 
to suffer eternal misery. Now, suffer me to ask, if 
. Abraham believed this doctrine, is it possible he should 
have failed to urge it as an argument, that all those 
wicked persons must go to hell, if God destroyed them ? 
No notice is taken of the very argument, which in our 
day, would be most urged in prayer to God, if any thing 
similar was to lake place. A!l who have read the Old 
Testament know, what vast numbers were cut off in a 
day, by war and pestilence, and other means, yet do you 
ever hear it deplored by a single individual, as it is often 
done in our day, that so many were sent out of the world 
to eternal misery ? If, in short, this doctrine was then 
believed, a dead silence and the most stoical apathy were 
maintained even by good men about it. 

Under the Old Testament dispensation, the sinful 
condition of the heathen nations, is often spoken about. 
But do we ever find the inspired writers representing 
those nations as all going to eternal misery, or did they 
use similar exertions to save them from it as are used 
in the present day ? If the doctrine of eternal misery 
was known and beUeved in those days, is it not very 
unaccountable, that so many ages should pass away, 
before God commanded the Gospel (o be preached to 
every creature, and before those who knew their dan- 
ger, should use exertions to save them from it? If the 
doctrine be false, we may cease to wonder at this, but 
if it be true, it is not easy to reconcile these things with 
the well known character of God, and the feelings of 
every good man. What an immense multitude of bu- 



THE WORD SHEOIi. > 53 

man beings, during four thousand years, must have liv- 
ed and died ignbrant that such a place of misery await- 
ed them in a future state. It is evident, that both Jews 
and Qentiles, during the above period, were often threat- 
ened with, yea, suffered temporal punishment. God rais- 
ed up, and sent prophets to warn therii of his judgments 
against them, lam then totally at a stand, what to say, 
in justification of God's character, the character of the 
prophets sent by him, yea, of all good men in those 
days, that, knowing eternal misery awaited every hea- 
then, yea, every wicked Jew, that nothing should be 
said to them on this subject. Jonah was sent to Nin- 
eveh, and the sum of his message was, — " yet forty 
days and Nineveh shall be overthrown." But did he, 
receive, or did he deliver any message to them, that 
their souls were in danger of eternal misery ? No ; and 
every one who has read the Old Testament knows, 
that this is only a single example from many more I 
might adduce. The very reason why Jonah refused to 
go to Nineveh was, he knew that God was a merciful 
God, ^md would spare Nineveh. After he did go, his 
pride was hurt, because God did not destroy the city as 
he had predicted. His peevish disposition was suffi- 
ciently manifested about this ; but not a word escapes 
him, that the Ninevites were exposed to endless pun- 
ishment. I ask, can a single instance be produced from 
the Old Testament, where a prophet of the Lord, was 
ever sent to any people to warn them against eternal 
misery in a place called Sheol or helll I do not find, 
that either true or false prophets did so under that dis- 
pensation, oi: that this doctrine was known and believed 
by a sin^e individual. As men were not threatened 
with such a punishment, so none were ever congratu- 
lated as being saved from it. As it was never held up 
to deter men firom sin while ignorant of God, so it was 
never urged on believers to stimulate them to gratitude 
and dsedience. Is it possible then, that this doctrine 

5* 



54 AM INQUIRY INTO 

could be believed, yet all remain silent on the subject ? 
If no revelation was given about it, how could men 
avoid auch a punishment ? II" a revelation was given, 
how is it accounted for, that it is not mentioned by one 
of the Old Testament writera ? If it is mentioned by 
any of them under any other name than Skeol, I am 
ignorant of it ; nor is this even pretended by those who 
believe the doctrine. 

3d, Another fact deserving notice, is, that the living 
in speaking of their dead friends, never speak ps tf 
they were to be separated from them afier death, bat 
alKays as associated with them. This appears to have 
been the case, whether the persons were good or bad. 
An instance to the contrary, cannot be produced, where 
a person ever expressed himself, as if he expected after 
death to be separated, and separated from his friends 
forever. But it is well known, that persons in our day, 
not only expect to be separated from many of their 
firiends forever, but say, they shall give their hearty 
amen to their everlasting condemnation. Yea, it is 
even said, that the happiness of those in heaven, is to 
be greatly enhanced, by their looking down on those in 
eternal torments, in seeing the smoke of it ascend for- 
ever and ever. Tliis was once current popular divin- 
ity, and though not yet altogether out of use, yet I am 
happy to say, sober-minded men reject it. But, it may 
be asked, is it true, that persons under the Old Tes- 
tament expected to be associated with their deceased 
fiiends after death ? I do not recollect a single instance 
to the contrary, and shall here, in proof of the asser- 
tion, refer to Jahn's Biblical Archseology, p. 234. To 
this it may probably be objected, that association with 
tbeir friends after death, only referred to their bodies 
mingling in the dust together, and had no reference to 
their «ptnV< after death. Admitting this to be true, 
peimitme to a«k, can any. proof be adduced, that their 
■pirib were separated from each other after death 1 I 



TH£ WORD SHEOL. 55 

further ask, did their spirits exist in a state of either 
happiness or misery after death ? J demand proof of 
this. As I am unahle to adduce any proof, I request 
those who say so, to produce evidence of this from the 
Old Testament. I shall give it all due consideration. 
At any rate, if the Old Testament is silent on the sub- 
ject, it ill becomes us to assert that such was the case. 
Its very silence, is to me an indication, that no such idea 
was entertained in those days. If it was, it is somewhat 
surprising that no person ventured to express it. And 
if it is not expressed by any of the Old Testament wri- 
ters, how is it known that such an idea was entertained 
by them. 

In concluding this investigation of the term Sheol, we 
shall briefly notice the following objections. 

1st, Does not David intimate his child was alive 
somewhere after death,. when he says — " I shall go to 
him, but he shall not return to me." 2 Sam. xi. 23. 
To this we answer no. David no more says his child 
was alive, than Joseph was after death when his father 
salid — " I will go down into Sheol unto my son mourn- 
ing." But let me ask, where did those parents suppose 
their children were after death ? In hell ? Surely not, 
for why were they in this case desirous to go to them ? 
If there, well might Jacob say he would go down to Jo- 
seph Tnouming. Were they then in heaven ? If so, 
Jacob ought to have said he would go down to Joseph 
refoicing. But if in heaven, why did he speak of go- 
ing down to him, for people always speak of gomg up 
to heaven. Where then did David and Jacob suppose 
their children had gone? I answer to Sheol; the 
house appointed for all the living. Job xxx. 33 ; the 
place Solomon refers to, when he says, " all go to one 
place." Eccl. xii. 23. All, good or bad, went to She- 
oh Psal. Ixxxix. 48. This was the world of the 
dead ; and the small and the great are there. Th^re 
the wicked cease from troubUng ; there the weary be 



56 AN INQUIRY INTO 

at rest, Job 3d. David knew his child had gone 
there ; and impressed with his own mortality he say; 
" I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. 

2d, It may be objected — ^when Samuel said to Saul 
— ^^ to-morrow shalt thoy and thy sons be with me," 
does he not intimate he was aUve somewhere after 
death ; and, his conversing with Saul a proof of it. To 
this we answer no ; for he that believes it, must take 
Saul and his sons to heaven, for no one believes Sam- 
uel went to hell. Moreover, he must believe, that a 
woman had power to bring a departed spirit out 
heaven. But we have shown in Essays, sect. 3d, that 
this woman was an imposter. The popular notion was, 
that Sheol was a deep region in the earth, where the 
ghosts of the dead all resided. This woman's trade 
was to consult with the dead, and for this purpose Saul 
resorted to her. But all such superstitious practices 
God condemned, and expressly prohibited the Jews 
from giving any, countenance to lliem. It is strange. 
Christians in the ninteenth century, should suppose 
there was any truth in them. We have seen above, 
Professor Stuart says — " a deep region beneath, peop- 
led with ghosts, is what we do not believe in." 

3d, It may be objected — ^future existence was not 
known under the Old Testament ; and if its silence on 
the subject of endless misery proves it false, it is also 
proved, there is no future existence. Answer. . We 
admit the force of this argument, if it can be proved the 
Old Testament is silent on the subject of future exist- 
ence. But this, we are surprised, that any man should 
aver ; but it would be aside firom our present design, 
to discuss this point. See Jahn's Bib. Arche. sect. 314. 
We doubt, if this would ever be denied, except for the 

Surpose of getting rid of the stumbling argument, thai 
>e Old Testament does not teach the doctrine of endr 
less punishment. Endless punishment it does not teaobj 
and rather than abandon it, same are willing to allow, fu* 
ture existence is not taught there. 



II ..■< 



THE WORD SHEOL. s 57 

4th5 It may be further objected — ^if men are at death 
reduced to dust, lose their powers and personal identity, 
and for a time cease to be susceptible of either enjoy- 
ment or suffering, why may not this state continue for 
ever ? What reason have we to hope, that their powers 
and personal identity will ever be restored ? To this I 
answer, God has promised man a future and an immor- 
tal life by a resurrection from the dead ; and the ex- 
ample and pledge of it, is given in Christ's resurrection 
from the dead. No man will deny this, who regards 
the authority of the scriptures ; or doubts its accomplish- 
ment, until he doubts the truth of divine revelation, 
and the power of God to affect it. But to doubt the 
competency of God's power to restore to man his pow- 
ers and personal identity, is not doubting enough. The 
man who doubts this, ought also to doubt, the compe- 
tency of his power to create man at first with such 
powers and personal identity. Creating at first, and a 
resurrection fi-om the dead, are both ascribed to the 
power of God in scripture. If I am asked — " how are 
the dead raised up? And with what body do they 
come ?" I refer the reader to 1 Cor. xv : 36 — 50 for 
the answer. 

To conclude. It is now generally conceded, by all 
critics and intelligent men, that endless punishment was 
not taught under the Jirst covenant. But it is general- 
ly believed to be taught under the new and better cov- 
enant. If this is true, how can it be called a better cov- 
manty and " established upon better promises ?" Is 
endless punishment a better promise ? And was it the 
fiuilt in the first covenant, which required the second 
and better covenant, that it did not teach the doctrine 
of endless punishment ? But if all this be true, how is 
Christ the mediator of a better covenant 1 If endless 
punishment, is not threatened in the law which came 
by Moses, how can it be threatened in the grace and 
truth which came by Je9us Christ ? If it is not heard 



88 AN INQ,UIRY INTO 

in the thunders, fire, and tempest of mount Sinai, who 
can think it is to be heard from mount Zion ? 



SECTION II. 

ALL THE TEXTS, IN WHICH HADES OCCURS CONSIDEEED. 

All critics are agreed, that the Greek Hades in the 
New Testament, corresponds in meaning to the He- 
Imtcw Sheol in the dd. In the septuagint version, the 
translators have rendered the term Sheol, 60 times by 
the word Hades j out of the 64 instances where it oc- 
curs. Hades, aiso occurs 16 times in the apocryphal 
books, and is used in a simalar way, as the Hebrew 
Sheol is, in the canonical writings of the Old Testa- 
ment. Besides, the New Testament writers in quoting 
fiom the Old, use Hades, as the rendering of Sheo^ 
in the passages they cite, see Ps. xvi. 10. compared 
with Acts ii. 27, etc* 

The term Hades, occurs eleven times in the Greek 
of the New Testament. In the common version, it is 
once rendered grave, and in the other ten places by 
the word helL The following are all the passages. 

Math. xi. 23.. " And thou Capernaum which art ex- 
alted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell, (Ha- 
des)." Dr. Campbell, in the dissertation quoted above, 
says — " as the city of Capernaum was never literally 
raised to heaven, we have no reaison to believe, that it 
was to be literally brought down to Hades. But as by 
the former expression we are given to understand, that 
it was to become a flourishing and splendid city, or ad 
some think, that it had obtained great spiritual advan- 
tages ; so by the latter, that it should be brought to the 
lowest degree of abasement and wretch^do^ss." Se^ 



THE WORD HA0ES. 59 

<»i Isai. vii. 9. above, where Sheol is used in a similar 
sense. This text has often been quoted to prove, that 
all J who have abused spiritual' privileges, shall be 
brought down to hell, or endless misery. 

Math. xvi. 18. " Upon this rock I will build my 
church, and the gates of hell, (Hades), shall not pre- 
vail against it." Dr. Campbell says — " it is by death, 
and by it only, the spirit enters into Hades. The gates 
of Hades is therefore a very natural periphrasis for 
death." But this is not altogether in unison, with 
what the Dr. has. said elsewhere concerning Hades: 
and, we shall see in the sequel from Dr. Whitby, that 
Hades is not a resceptach of sovJsy or spirits. This 
was not believed by the ancient Hebrews, but was a 
mere heathen noticm. Certainly, no text in the Bible 
says, *^ it is by death the spirit enters into Hades," or 
speaks of souls, or spirits being there. 

Lake x. 15. ^'^ And thou, Capernaum, which art ex- 
alted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to Hell, (HadesY" 
See on Math. xi. 33. above. This is only the parallel 
text to it, and has there been considered. 

Luke xvi. 23. "And in hell, (Hades), he lifted up 
his eyes being in torment." As this is the only text in 
which Hades occurs, where it is alledged, it signifies 
heU the world of woe, we shall give it a full considera- 
tion. The following, are all the remarks which Mr. 
Stuart makes on^this passage. "That in the heathen 
Hades was a Tartarus, a place of punishment and suf- 
fering, is too well known to need illustration and proof 
cm the present occasion. More will be said on this 
point, when I come to treat of Tartarus. That in Ha- 
des^ Shed, according to the views of the Hebrews, and 
rf Jesus himself, there was a place of torment, is put 
out of all question by the passage now before us." All 
this is mere assertion, but as it comes from Mr. Stuart, 
we shall examine it. Let us inquire 

1st, was the Tartarus in the heathen Hades real, or 



60 AN INQ,U<RY INTO 

was it fictitiotis ? This question ought to be fully ex- 
amined, for if it was fictitious, the mere fancy of the 
poets, Mr. Stuart's hell is built on the sand. But he is 
so confident, it was a reality , he says, " that in the hea- 
then Hades was a Tartarus, a place of punishment and 
suffering, is too well known to need illustration and 
proof on the present occasion." We are surprised that 
he should take this bold ground, for we shall show from 
his own statements, the heathen Tartarus was a mere 
fiction. Sorry are we to think, he should allege, our 
Lord in this passage sanctioned a heathen fable fw 
truth. That Tartarus was a mere heathen fable, and 
had its origen in heathenism, we shall now show. 

Cicero, one of the wisest men among the heathen, 
in his seventh oration says — " For it was on this ac- 
count that the ancients invented their infernal punish- 
ments of the dead, to keep the wicked under some awe 
in this life, who without them would have no dread of 
death itself." Intelligent heathens, had no more faith 
in infernal punishments, than people now have in the 
Salem witchcraft. See my letters to Mr. Hudson, pp. 
266, 267, where I have quoted Mosheim, who says, 
such punishments were invented for state and military 
purposes. See also the next section. 

But as Mr. Stuart will not dispute his own testimony, 
let us see what he has said elsewhere about Tartarus, 
After describing Cimmeria as an imaginary place, and 
Erehus as no better, though contiguous to Hades, he 
thus describes it. " Last and lowest of all, was Hades, 
which is subdivided into the upper and lower. In the 
upper part are the Elysian fields, the abode of the 
good; and beneath these, i.*e. in the deepest dungeon, 
in the bowels of the earth, is Tartarus the place of pun- 
ishment for the wicked, answering in some respects, to 
the Gehenna of the Hebrews. Hades, then, in the 
view of the Greeks and Romans was the under-world, 
the world of the dead, a place deep in the earth, dark, 



THE WORD HABES. 61 

cheerless; where every thing was unsubstantial and 
shadowy. The Manes were neither body nor spirit ; 
but something intermediate, not palpable to any of the 
senses, except to the sight and hearing ; pursuing the 
mere shadows of their occupations on earth, and incapa- 
ble of any plans, enjoyments, or satisfaction which were 
substantial." Exeget. Essays, pp. 124 — 128. Such is 
the heathen Hades, and its Tartarus, as described by 
Mr. Stuart himself. Thil^ Tartarus he avers, Jesus 
sanctions as real in the passage in question. But, did 
Jesus convert a heathen fahle into truth? Did the 
heathens invent a hell for him ? But let us look at this 
Hades or hell ? If we ask where is Hades ? It is an- 
swered in the above quotation — " it is a place deep in 
the earth,'' And if it is asked what is the use of this 
Hades ? It is answered, it is — " the abode of departed 
souls.'' Again ; if we ask how is it divided ? It is an- 
swered — "it is subdivided into the upper and lower. 
In the upper part are the Ely sian fields, the abode of the 
good ; and beneath these, i. e. in the deepest dungeon, 
in the bowels of the earth, is Tartarus, the place of 
punishment for the wicked, answering in some respects, 
to the Gehenna of the Hebrews.-' But Mr. Stuart 
must have forgotten, that he told us above — " a deep 
region beneath peopled with ghosts, is what we do not 
believe in." It is a great mistake, to say, Tartarus an- 
swers in some respects to the Gehenna of the Hebrews, 
if by Hebrews he means the ancient Jems, or the sacred 
writers. Not a trace of Tartarus is to be found in the 
Old Testament,' nor, do the writers ever use Gehenna 
m the sense of Tartarus, as all must allow. 

But the principal question to be decided here, is — 
was Tartarus real or imaginary ? Mr. Stuart, is con- 
fident it is a reality. .The fact he considers so well 
known, as to save him all trouble, of giving proof or il- 
lustration of it. But here, he strangely forgot what he 
said, p. 126,—" Virgil in his jEneid, book vi. has given 

6 



62 AN INQ,UIRY INTO 

a vivid picture of Orcus or Hades. It is more adapted, 
however, to convey the fancies of his own poetic im- 
agination, than it is to convey an exact idea of the 
more ancient and general opinions of the Greeks. in re- 
spect to Hades. He loses sight in some measure of the 
views of Homer, and is more intent on making out a 
itricking picture, than on giving an exact account of 
tradition." 

But again, he says p. 128 — ^^ Virgil describes the 
progress of Eneas in the region of Hades, in term$ 
which show what a doleful place he thought it to beu 
However, when he brings hb hero to Elysium, to the 
locus laetos et amoena vireta, sedesqucy (vi. 637. seq). 
he seems to make , something more substantial out of 
them, than can be found in any of the preceding hea- 
then writers. But it is plainly the fancy of the poet 
which does this, and not the tradition of the Greek and 
Roman nations." On the same page he adds — " of the 
Elysium of Virgil, Homer knows little or nothing ; and 
it is sufficently plain^ that it is principally the o&pring 
of his own imagination." But if all this be the fancy 
of the poety the offspring of his own imagination^ why 
did Mr. Stuart say above — " that in the heathen Hades 
was a TartaruSy a place of punishment and suffering, is 
too well known to need illustration and proof on the pre- 
sent occasion ?" He would have said the truth, and 
maintained consistency in his statements, had he said — 
'' that in the heathen Hades was a Tartarus which was 
the fancy of the poety the offspring of his own imagi- 
nation. But, he assumes the heathen Tartarus to be 
a reality, and declares that Jesus taught it in the para- 
ble before us. 

I shall now proceed to show, from other writings, ap- 
proved by Mr. Stuart, that this Tartarus was of hea- 
then origen. It is well known Mr. Isaac Stuart, his 
son, lately translated from the French, J. M. Greppo's 
Essay on the Hieroglyphic systeni of M. ChampoUion 



THE WORD HADES. 63 

junior. He and his father, have added notes and illus- 
trations to this work, which famishes the following inr 
formation on this subject. See all they have said, i^ 
notes M. and N. a part of which I shall quote. In 
note M. p. 232, it is thus written. 

" Osiris was the chief God of the Egyptian amenti, 
answering to the Pluto of the Greeks and Latins. It 
is sufficent for our purpose to know where his domin- 
ion was exercised. This was over the souls of men af- 
ter their decease — a fact which is revealed by almost 
eveffry legend and painting relating to the dead. The 
Amenti of the Egyptians, corresponding to the Hades of 
the Greeks and to the Tartarus of the Latins, was the 
place of the dead. It was governed by Osiris as chief, 
and by many subordinate divinities." On this I remark 

1st, It is confessed — *^ the Amenti of the Egypt- 
ians, corresponded to the Hades of the Greeks, and to 
the Tartarus of the Latins." But why not also con- 
fess, it corresponds to the hell of Christians ? Mr. Stu- 
art identifies his hell with the heathen Tartarus, and of 
course with the Egyptian Amenti, 

2d, If ^' Osiris was the chief God of the Egyptian 
Amenti, answering to the Pluto of the Greeks and 
Latins," is not the Devil the chief God in the hell of 
Christians ? Let us ask — ^where was the dominion of 
Osiris and Pluto exercised? It is answered in the 
above quotation — " this was over the souls of men after 
their decease." And is not this the very dominion, 
which Christians assign to their Devil ? Is not his do- 
minion over the souls of men after their decease ? Is 
not he represented, as -the chief God, or ruler in their 
hell ? And if it be, " a fact, which is revealed by al^ 
most every legend and painting relating to the dead," 
among the Egyptians, that this was the proper domin- 
ion of their Osiris, does not almost every tract and ser- 
mcm among Christians, reveal, that hell is the proper 
dominion of the Devil ? In a word — ^who can well de- 



64 AN INQ,UIRY INTO 

ny, that the Devil among Christians, answers the same 
purposes to thpm, that Osiris did to the Egyptians, and 
Pluto to the Greeks and Latins ? 

But again, in pp. 235, 236, the following account of 
an Egyptian burial, is quoted from Spineto. Mr. Stu- 
art assigns this reason for the quotation. " We quote the 
whole, as it shows from whence an important part of 
the Greek mythology was derived." It runs thus — 
" the common place of burial was beyond the lake Ach-- 
erjsitty or Acharejish which meant the last state, the last 
condition of man, and from which the poets have im- 
agined the fabuldus lake of Acheron. On the borders 
of this lake Acherjsia sat a tribunal, composed of forty- 
two judges, whose office, previous to the dead being 
permitted to be carried to the cemetry beyond the lake, 
was to inquire into the whole conduct of his life. 

If the deceased had died insolvent, they adjudged the 
corpse to his creditors, which was considered as a mark 
of dishonor, in order to oblige his relations and friends 
to redeem it, by raising the necessary sums among them- 
selves. If he had led a wicked life, they ordered that 
he should be deprived of solemn burial, and he was con- 
sequently carried and thrown into a large ditch made 
for the purpose, to which they gave the appellation of 
Tartar, on account of the lamentations that this sen- 
tence produced among his surviving friends and rela- 
tions. 

This is also the origin of the fabulous Tartarus, in 
which the poets have transferred the lamentations made 
by. the living to the dead themselves who were thrown 
into it. 

If no accuser appeared, or if the accusation had prov- 
ed groundless, the judges decreed that the deceased 
was entitled to his burial, and his eulogium was pro-*^ 
nounced amidst the applauses of the bystanders, in . 
which they praised his education, his religion, his just- 
ice, in short, all his virtues, without, however, mention^ 



THE WOBD HADES. 65 

ing any thing about his riches or nobility^ both of which 
were considered as mere gifts of fortune. 

To carry the corpse to the cemetry, it was necessary 
to cross the lake, and this was done by means of a boat, 
in which no one could be admitted without the express 
order of the judges, and without paying a small sum for 
the conveyance, this regulation was so strictly enforc- 
ed, that the kings themselves were not exempt ihwu its . 
severity. 

The cemetry was a large plain surrounded by trees, 
and intersected by Canals, to which they had given the 
appellation of elisout, or elisiansy which means nothing 
else but rest. And such again is the origin of the poet- 
ical Charon and his boat, as well as of the fabulous de- 
scription of the Elysian Fields." 

But again, pp. 241, 242, it is said — " in comparing 
the Egyptian Amenti with the Hades of the Greeks and 
with the Tartarus of the Latins, Spineto briefly adverts 
to some points of assimilation, as follows ; ^^ Upon the 
whole, the first seems to have been the prototype and 
the origin of the two last. Orpheus, who had been ini- 
tiated into all the secrets of the mysteries of Egypt, car- 
ried into Greece these mysteries ;* and the Greeks soon 
so altered the whole, as to render them no longer cog- 
nizable. Osiris became Pluto ; Sme, Persephone [or 
rather Themis simply] ; Oms, Cerberus ; Thoth, Mer- 
curius Psychopompos ; Horus, - Apis, and Anubis, the 
three infernal judges, Minos, ^acus, and Rhadaman-* 
thus. To conclude the whole, the symbolical heads of 
the different animals under which the forty-two judges 
werd represented, being deprived of their primitive and 
symbolical meaning, w^re changed into real monsters, 
the Chimeras, the Harpies, and the Goi^ons, and other 

* Ai^ one who will take the trouble to compare the mysteries of Ims 
and Osiris with those of Ceres and Proserpine, with those of Venus and 
Adonis, and with those of Bacchus, will discover many striking resembl&n- 

.— T». 

6* 



66 AN INQ.UIBY INTO ^ 



N 



such unnatural and horrible things, with which they 
peopled their fantastic hell ; and thus the Amenti of 
the Egyptians, as indeed the greater part, if not the 
whole of their religion, became, in the hands of the 
Greeks and Romans, a compound of fables and absurd- 



ities." 



It is very obvious from these quotations, 

1st, That the Egyptian Amenti, became the Hades 
of the Greeks, and the Tartarus of the Latins. The 
first, the prototype and the origin of the two last. Mr. 
Stuart here, does not pretend that Tartarus had its ori- 
gm in divine revelation. On the contrary, it is called 
the ^^fdbuUms Tartarus, '^ Why then say it is a real- 
ity, and sanctioned by our Lord in the pilrable before, 
us ? Tartarus had just as little truth in it, as " tht 
fabulous lake Acheron,^^ the ^' poetical charron and his 
boat,^^ or " the ideal Elysian Jields,^^ It is here ad- 
mitted, Tartarus, or hell, had its origin in the Egyptian 
AmentL 

2d, We are told in the above quotations — " that Or- 
pheus carried this knowledge of the Egyptian Amenti, 
or hell with other mysteries into Greece : and in the 
hands of the Greeks and Romans, it soon became a 
compound of fables and absurdities." Was it truth, I 
ask, which in the hands of the Greeks and Romans, 
" became a compound of fables and absurdities ?" Sure- 
ly not. It was only absurdities, which became more 
absurd. The Greeks and Romans, improved on the 
Egyptian hell, as they did on every thing else. And 
have not Christians adopted the Egyptian AeZZ, with 
the Grecian and Roman improvements, yea have made 
some improvements of their own. The Grecian and 
* R(Mfnan hell, is more like the Christian hell, than the 
ori^al Amenti of the Egyptians. Does not Mr. Stu- 
art aver, our Lord teaches a Tartarus in the parable 
before us, and is not this his hell! 

3d, It seems now to be conceded, that the Egyptian 



THE WORD HADES. 67 

Amentiy is " the prototype and the origin of the Hades 
of the Greeks, the Tartarus of the Latins, arid the hell 
of Christians." Dr. Good in his book of nature, says 
— ^^ it was believed in most countries, that this hell. 
Hades, or invisible world, is divided into two very dis- 
tinct and opposite regions by a broad and impassable 
gulph ; that the one is a seat of happiness, a paradise, 
or elysium, and the other a seat of misery, a Gejienna, 
or Tartarus ; and that there is a supfeme magistrate and 
an impartial tribunal belonging to the infernal shades, 
before whi6h the ghosts must appear, and by which he 
is sentenced to the one or the other, according to the 
deeds done in the body. Egypt is said to have been 
the inventress of this important and valuable part of the 
common tradition ; and, undoubtedly, it is to be found 
in the earliest records of Egyptian history." The only 
question to be settled, is — Did the knowledge of this 
Egyptian Amentiy hell, or invisible world, come from 
God, or was it of man's invention ? If this question can 
be fairly determined, the hdl of Christians stands 
or falls with it. Can it then be determined, that this 
Amenti or heU of the Egyptians, was of man's inven- 
tion ? We answer yes, and that to a moral certainty. 
1st, Dr. Good allows, Egypt was " the inventress^^ of 
this doctrine. Mr. Stuart admits this by liis silence, for 
he does not intimate, it had its origin from God. 2d, 
what puts this out of all question is, Moses was brought 
up in Egypt ; was learned in all the wisdom of the 
E^ptians ; consequently knew all about their Amenti 
or hell ; yet, says not a word about it in his five books. 
But why was he silent on such an important doctrine, 
if he believed it came from God ? What I ask, could 
prevent him from teaching it, except this — that Egypt, 
not God was the inventress of it, as Dr. Good affirms. 
If it is found in the earliest records of Egyptian history, 
as Dr. Good affirms, why is it not found in the earliest 
records of divine revelation, if the doctrine is from God ? 



68 AN INQ.UIRy INTO 

Mr. Stuart indeed assertSy that there was a Tartarus in 
the Hebrew Sheoly but assertions will not answer on a 
subject of this nature. Dr. Campbell, Dr. Whitby, 
and others, adduce evidence in point blank contradiction' 
of his assertion. The very silence of Moses and the 
prophets, about an Amenti Tartarus, or heU, shows no 
such doctrine was believed by them. See my Essays, 
and Letters to Mr. Hudson, where the origin and his- 
tory of hell torments is stated at length, and how this 
doctrine caitie to be embraced by the Jews, and was 
finally introduced into the Christian Church. Further 
evidence of this will appear, by considering another 
question; namely 

2d, Is it true,, as Mr. Stuart asserts — " that in Ha* 
desy Sheoly according to the views of the Hebrews, and 
of Jesus himself, there is a place of torment, is put out 
of all question by the passage now before us." This 
assertion I shall now examine. It divides itself into two 
parts. — 1st, It is asserted, " that in Hades ,Sheol, accord- 
ing to the views of the Hebrews there was a place of 
torment, is put out of all question by the passage before 
us." If Mr. Stuart here by Hebrews, means the an* 
dent Hebrews, the Scripture writers, his assertion is 
false. His own examination of Sheol sufficiently shows 
this, for not in a single text, did he show, that any 
Scripture writer believed, that in Sheol there was a 
place of torment. Dr. Whitby, in the following re- 
marks on Acts ii. 27. proves the assertion false. He 
says — " that Sheol throughout the Old Testament, and 
Hades in the septuagint, answeriDg to it, signify not the 
place of punishment, or of the s«nils of bad men only 
but the grave only, or the place of death, appears — Ir 
From the root of it Shatu, which signifies to ask, 
crave and requii^, because it craves for all m 
Prov. XXX. 16. and will let no man escape its ban 
Psal. Ixxxviii. 48L It is that Sheol or Hades, whitb 
we are all going, Eccles. ix. 10. 



THE WORD HADES. 69 

2d, Because it is the pla(fe to which the good as well 
as the had go, for they whose souls go upwards, de- 
scend into it. Thither went Jacob, Gen. xxxvii. 35. 
There Job desired to be, Chap. xiv. 13. for he knew 
that Sheol was his house, Chap. xvii. 13. and to de- 
scend into the dust was to descend into Hades. Is not 
death common to all men ? Is not Hades the house 
of all men ? Hezekiah expected to be there after he 
went hence, for he said " I shall go to the gates of Ha- 
des," Isai. xxxviii. 30. That is, saith Jerome, to those 
gates of which the Psalmist speaks, saying, " thou wilt 
lift me up from the gates of death." The ancient 
Greeks assigned one Hades to all that died, and there- 
fore say. Hades receives all mortal men together, all 
men shall go to Hades. 

" 3d, Had the penmen of the Old Testament meant 
by Hades any receptacle of souls, they could not truly 
have declared, there was no wisdom, or knowledge in 
Sheol, Ecc. ix. 10. No remembrance of God there, 
Ps, vi. 5. No praising of him in Sheol, Isai. xxxviii. 
18. For those heathens who looked upon it as the re- 
ceptacle of souls, held it to be a place in which they 
would be punished or rewarded." Compare this with 
Mr. Stuart's assertion. It is, unquestionable, that fla- 
des in its original signification, did not include in it a 
Tartarusy any more than Sheol. Dr. Campbell says — 
it signified — " obscure y hidden, invinble. So did the 
word heU originally." Dr. Whitby has just told us, — 
"the ancient Greeks assigned one Hades to all that 
died," the same the ancient Hebrews did, in regard to 
their Sheol. Indeed, the above quotation, stands in 
direct opposition to Mr. Stuart's views of both Sheol 
and Hades. Can he, or any other man show, that 
Whitby is mistaken ? 

I repeat the question then, what Hebrews does Mr. 
Stuart refer to in the above assertion ? ' If he means the 
later Hebrews, the Hebrews in the days of our Lord, 



70 AN INQ,UIRY INTO 

his assertion is true; but the way they came to be- 
Ueve, that in Sheol, Hades^thevb is a place of torment, 
does no credit to the doctrine of endless Hell torments. 
IJet us hear Dr. Campbell, one of its professed friends. 
In his sixth Prelim. Diss. sect. 19, he thus writes.— r 
^^ But is there not one passage, It may be said, in which 
the word Hades must be understood as sjmonymous 
with Gehenna, and consequently must denote the place 
of final punishment prepared for the wicked, or HeU in 
the Christian acceptation of the term ? Ye have it in 
the story of the rich man and Lazarus, Luke xvi. 23. 
In hell, en to ade, he lift up his eyes, being in torments, 
and seeth Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bo- 
som. This is the only passage in holy writ, which 
seems to give countenance to the opinion, that Hades 
sometimes means the same thing as Gehenna, Here it 
is represented as a place of punishment. The rich man 
is said to be tormented there in the midst of flames. 
TThese things will deserve to be examined narrowly. It 
is plain, that in the Old Testament, the most profound 
silence is observed in regard to the state of the deceas- 
ed, their joys or sorrows, happiness or misery. It is 
represented to us rather by negative qualities than by 
positive, by its silence, its darkness, its being inaccessi- 
ble, unless by preternatural means, to the living, and 
their ignorance about it. Thus much in general seems 
always to have been presumed concerning it, that it is 
not a state of activity adapted for exertion, or indeed 
tor the accomplishment of any important purpose, good 
or bad. In most respects, however, there was a resem- 
blance in their notions on this subject, to those of the 
most ancient heathens. 

" But the opinions neither of Hebrews nor of hea- 
thens remained invariably the same. And from the 
time of the captivity, more especially from the time of 
the subjection of the Jews, first to the Macedonian 
empire, and c^fterw^ds to the Roman ; as they had a 



, THE WOBD HADES. 71 

closer intercourse with Pagans, they insensibly mibibed 
many of their sentiments, particularly on those subjects 
whereon theu* law was silent, and wherein, by conse- 
queiice, they considered themselves as at greater free- 
dom. On this subject of a future state, we find a con- 
aderable difference in the popular opinions of the Jews 
in our Savior's time,^ firom those which prevailed in 
the days of the ancient prophets. As both Greeks and 
Roman's had adopted the notion, that the ghosts of the 
departed were susceptible both of enjoyment and of 
suffering.. They were led to suppose a sort of retribu- 
tion in that state, for theit merit or demerit in the pre- 
sent. The Jews did not indeed adopt the Pagan 
fables on this subject ; nor did they express themselves 
entirely in the same manner ; but the general train of 
thinking in both came pretty much to coincide. The 
Greek Hades they found well adapted to express the 
Hebrew SkeoL This they came to conceive as includ- 
ing different sorts of habitations for ghosts of different 
characters. And though they did not receive the terms 
Ebftivm or Mysian fields, as suitable appellations for 
the regions peopled by good spirits, they took instead 
of them, as better adapted to their own theology, the 
garden, of Eden, or Paradise, a name originally Per- 
sian, by. which the word answering to garden' especially 
when, applied to Eden, had commonly been rendered 
by the seventy. To denote the same state, they some- 
times used the phrase Abraham's bosom, a metaphor 
borrowed from the manner in which they reclined at 
meals. But, on the other hand, to express the un- 
happy situation of the wicked in that intermediate 
state, they do not seem to have declined the use of the 
word Tartarus. The Apostle, Peter, 2 Epis. ii. 4. 
says of evil angels that Ood cast them down to Hell, 
and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserve 
td unto judgment. So it stands in the common version, 
thou^ neither Gehenna nor Hades are in the orginal, 



72 AN INQ,UIRY INTO 

where the expression is seirais zophou Tartawsas par- 
edoJeen eis krisin teteremenoiis. The worcl is not Ge- 
henna ; for that comes after judgment ; but Tartarus, 
which is, as it were, the prison of Hades, wherein crimi- - 
nals are kept till the general judgment. And as, in the 
ordinary use of the Greek word, it was comprehended 
imder Hades, as a part ; it ought, unless we had some 
positive reason to the contrary, by the ordinary rules 
of interpretation, to be understood so here; There is 
then no inconsistency in maintaining that the rich man, 
though in torments, was not in Gehenna) but in that 
part of Hades called Tartarus, where we have 9een al- 
ready that spirits reserved for judgment are detained 
in darkness." 

Such are the statements of Dr. Campbell. For a 
correction o his views of 2 Peter ii. 4. and some other 
things in this quotation, we refer to the next section. 
Here, we submit for the consideration of the reader the 
following remarks. 

1st, He declares, that the parable of the rich man 
and Lazarus, is the only place in Holy Writ, which 
seems to give countenance to the opinion, that Hades 
sometimes means the same thing as Gehenna. We 
have seen already, he denies that Hades is the place of 
eternal punishment ; and that he contends for Gehenna 
being this place, we shall see m the next chapter. 

2d, He says — " it is plain that in the Old Testament, 
the most profound silence is observed in regard to the 
state of the deceased, their joys or sorrows, happiness 
or misery." If the Old Testament maintains a pro- 
found silence on this subject, it ought to be inquired, 

3d, How did the Jews in our Lord's day, come to 
consider Hades as a place t)f punishment for the wick- 
ed ? That a change in their opinions on this subject, 
had taken place, is evident ; for he says, — " on this 
subject of a future state, we iSnd a considerable differ- 
ence in the popular opinions of the Jews in our Sav- 



THE WORD HADES. 73 

« 

ior's time, from those which prevailed in the days of 
the ancient prophets." Well, how did this change in 
then* opinions take place ? Was it by some new rev- 
elation which God made to them ? He thus accounts 
fcMT the change of their opinions. " But the opinions 
neither of Hebrews nor of heathen, remained invariably 
the same. And from the time of the captivity, more 
specially from the time, of the subjection of the Jews, 
first to the Macedonian empire, and afterwards to the 
Roman ; as they had a closer intercourse with Pagans, 
they insensibly imbibed many of their sentiments par- 
ticularly on those subjects whereon their law was silent, 
and wherein, by consequence, they considered them- 
sehres as at greater freedom.* As both Greeks and 
Romans had adopted the notion, that the ghosts of the 
deceased were susceptible both of enjoyment and of 
suffering, they were led to suppose a sort of retribution 
in that state, for thefar merit or demerit in the present. 
The Jews did not indeed adopt the Pagan fables* on this 
subject, nor did they express themselves entirely in the 
same manner ; but their general train of thinking in both 
came pretty much to coincide." — ^This statement, is 
surely too plain to be misunderstood. How much plain- 
er could he have told us, that a punishment in Hades 
was a mere heathen notion^ which the Jews learned from 
their intercourse with them ? He declares, that neither 
Sheol nor Hades is used in Scripture to express a place 
of punishment, and shows, that the Pagan fables teach 
it, and the Jews learned it from them. What are we 
then to think, when this is the account of the doctrine 
of hell torments by one of its professed friends ? Had 
this statement been given by a professed Universalist, 
the cry would be raised that it was a mere fabrication of 
his own, in support of his system. But this is the state- 

* Bat who bas ^freedom, to adopt, or invent opinions on the sufageet 
of a firture state 1 The indulgence of this freedom by others beftwe iis» 
occasions our difficulties now on the subjecVr 

7 



74 AN INQUIRY INTO 

ment of Dr. Campbell, late principal of Marischal col- 
lege, Aberdeen, who lived and died, a celebrated the- 
ologian in the church of Scotland. It is notorious, that 
the Jews derived these ojpinions from their intercourse 
with the heathen. Where the heathen got them he 
does not inform us. Had they been from cuvine revela^ 
tion, the heathen ought to have learned them from the 
Jews. But here the matter is reversed. The heathen 
it seems anticipated divine revelation, as to punishment 
in Hades. They revealed it to the Jews by means of 
their fables. The Jews it is said, — " did not adopt 
their fables, nor did they express themselves entirely m 
the same manner, but their general train of thinKing 
came pretty much to coincide." That man must be 
very dull, who does not learn from this, that torment in 
Hades, had its origin in heathenism, and, that the Jews 
were ignorant of it, until they learned it from the hea- 
then. — From all this, will it be easy for any one to resist 
the conviction, that to this popular opinion, which the 
Jews had imbibed from their intercourse with the hea- 
then, our Lord alluded in his parable of the rich man 
and Lazarus ? He no more attempts to correct this 
Pagan notion, than the common opinion, that satan had 
bound a woman eighteen years with an infirmity. 

4th, Dr. Campbell further declares, that though the 
Jews did not adopt the Pagan fables on this subject, yet 
their train of thinking pretty much coincided. " The 
Greek Hades they found well adapted to express the 
Hebrew Sheol. This they came to conceive as including 
different sorts of habitations for ghosts of different char- 
acters." They did not adopt the terms Elysian fields, to 
express the region of good spirits, but he says, " they. 
do not seem to have declined the use of the word Tar-: 
tarus" to express the unhappy situation of the wicked 
in an intermediate state. Concerning the word Tarta- 
rus, he says — " the word is not Gehenna, for that 
comes after judgment, but Tartarus, which is, as it 



THE WORD HADES. 75 

were, the prison of Hades, wherein criminals are kept 
till the general judgment." What then is to be done 
with the criminals which had been confined in this pris- 
on ? They are not then to be released, and made happy. 
They must be sent 3omewhere after this period, and no 
place so suitable could be devised as Gehenna. But 
whether it be a very happy device, in establishing the 
doctrine of eternal misery, will appear fi'om the next 
chapter. All we wish noticed here, is, that then we 
shall have done with Hades , and Tartarus, the prison 
of Hades, and all punishment in them, for they are to 
be no more. This is not only the opinion of the au- 
thors we have quoted, but we believe is the general 
opinion of all the learned. 

2d, Mr. Stuart also asserts — " That in Hades, Sheol, 
according to the views of Jesus himself there was a 
place of torment, is put out of all question by the pas- 
sage now before us." Well ; by the same passage, it 
is put out of all question, that literal fire was the cause 
of the torment, for the rich man said — " I am torment- 
ed in this flams. The passage also puts it out of all 
question, that he had bodily members }n Hell, He had 
eyes and could see ; ears and could hear ; a tongue and 
could speak in Hell. Besides, the passage puts it out 
of all question, that the good and bad are after death, 
located so near each other, that they can familiarly con- 
verse together, etc. But does Mr. Stuart also believe 
all this ? We presume not. 

2d, But if this parable puts it out of all question, that 
in Hades, Skeol, there is a place of torment, then other 
passages put it out of all question, that our Lord believed 
m demons; in anevil being called «a^an; in ghosts; and 
that the sacred writers believed in witchcraft. Did not 
Jesus often speak of demons as real beings ? Did he 
not speak as if satan had bound a woman eighteen 
years with an infirmity ? And are not ghosts, and 
witchcraft f spoken of as realities ? Now, if it is said, in 



76 AN 1NQ,UIBY INTO 

these cases the writers only speak in accommodation to 
popular opinions, the same must be said respecting the 
parable in question. There is no escape here, but by 
boldly affirming they are all realities. But Mr. Stuart, 
must then abandon his skepticism about ghosts ; for is 
not his Tartarus a deep region beneath peopled with 
ghosts ? The evidence, is fifty times more, that demons 
are real beings, than that Hades is a place of torment, 
and yet I question if he believes in demons. 

3d, If this parable puts it out of all question, that in 
Hades y Sheoly there is a place of torment, then Tsai xiv. 
9 — 20, puts it out of all question, that persons are alive 
in iS%eof, and msult one another there. But Mr. 
Stuart takes the liberty to say about tliis passage, pp. 
121, 122. ^^A deep region beneath, peopled with 
ghosts, is what we do not believe in. Nor is there any 
more certainty that it is true, because this method oj 
speaking about it in the scriptures is adopted, than thai 
the sun goes round the earth, because they speak of it 
as doing so. In most cases, it is the language of poetry 
which employs the popular methods of representation. 
It is poetry which gives a kind of life and animation tc 
the inhabitants of the under-world. Poetry personifies 
that world, so in Isai. v. 14. Prov. xxvii. 20, xxx. 15. 
16. and xii. 1. Above all is this the case, in that most 
striking passage in Isai. xiv, 9 — 20, in which all com- 
mentators are compelled to admit a fictitious or imagina- 
ry costume. Here the ghosts rise up from their places 
of repose, and meet and insult the king of Babylon, and 
exhuiit over his fall. All b life and animation, when he 
goes down into the under-world. Yet who was evei 
misled by this passage, and induced to regard it as 8 
passage to be literally understood. But if this be verji 
plain, then are other passages of a nature in any re- 
spect similiar, equally plain also." On this quotatioHj 
in connection with the parable before us, we remark. 

1st, Is not Isai. xiv. 9 — ^20 and Luke xvi, 19 — 38 



THE WORD HADES. 77 

very similar ? The king of Babylon in the one, and 
the rich man m the other, are both represented as in 
Sheol or Hades after death. Both are represented as 
alive there. All is life and animation, when both go to 
Sheol or Hades. . Both find company there. Both find 
persons ready to converse with them there. In these, 
and other thuigs the passages are very similar indeed, so 
much so, that they may be called the same. 

2d, By what rule of scripture interpretation, does Mr. 
Stuart then conclude, Isai. xiv, 9 — 20, is not to be un- 
derstood literally, but that Luke xvi. 19 — 32, is to be 
interpreted literally ? How does he determine, the one 
18 the language of poetry, but the other is a reality ? 
That the one has " b. fictitious or imaginary costume " 
but the other is a plain narrative of facts 7 What, I 
ask, is there in the one passage more than the other, 
which leads him to such different interpretations of them. 
Has he not told us — " other passages of a nature in 
any respect similar^^ to Isai. xiv. 9 — ^20, must be inter- 
preted as the language of poetry ; as having a fictitious 
and imaginary costume 7 If the one passage is the lan- 
guage of poetry y the other is the language of parable. 
And if the one passage — " employs the popular meth- 
ods of representations" so does the other. And what 
intelligent man can deny, the representations in both 
had taeu* origin in fable ? If it is poetry or fable, 
'^ wluch gives a kind of life and animation to the inhab- 
itants' of the under-world," it is also poetry or fable, 
whidi represents Hades as a place of torment. And 
if there is no " certainty that it is true, because this 
method of speaking about it in scripture is adopted" m 
the one case, neither is there any certainty in the other. 
There is no more certainty in either case, than that the 
sun goes round the earth, because the scriptures speak 
of it as doing so. v 

3d, I am aware it will be said — ^There is one great 
di&rence between the two passages. In Luke xvi. 19 — 
^ 7* 



78 AN INQUIRY INTO 

32, the rich man in Hades is represented as in torment, 
but no such representation is given of the king of Bab- 
ylon in Sheol, Isai. xiv. 9 — 20. This is freely granted ; 
but a few remarks will account for this difierence, and 
place the subject in a proper light. We ask then, why 
It was not said concerning the king of Babylon, that he 
was in torment in Sheol, just as well as the rich man in 
Hades ? Was the king of Babylon, so much better than 
the rich man, that he did not deserve it ? As no man will 
affirm, any /Old Testament writer sa}d, concerning the 
wickedest man that ever went to Sheol — " and in Sheol 
he lifted up his eyes being in torment, ^^ how are we to 
account for this difference ? If what Mr. Stuart asserts be 
true, — " that in Hades, Sheol, according to the views of 
the Hebrews, and of Jesus himself, there was a place 
of torment," this ought to have been said, and said fre- 
quently, both in the Old and New Testaments. It was 
incumbent on him, to account for the silence of the Old 
Testament writers, as to Sheol being a place of torment, 
if his assertion be true. But, it is without foundation, 
and opposed above by Dr. Campbell, and other critics. 
Dr. Whitby we have seen, declares, Sheol, Hades, was 
not a receptacle of souls, but that this was a mere no- 
tion of the heathen Greeks. But I shall account for 
the difference between the two passages. 

1st, In the days of Isaiah, the Jews did not believe 
Sheol or Hades ^v^ a place of torment. This doctrine 
was not taught in the sacred books of the Jews ; nor 
had it then been imported fix)m the heathen. This is 
testified by Dr. Campbell, Whitby, Macknight, and 
others. Poetry then, had riven a kind of life and ani- 
mation to the dead in Sheol, as Mr. Stuart shows, but 
the poets had not gone so far, as to represent them 
as either in torment or happiness. It was impossible 
then in the nature of things for Isaiah chap. xiv. 9 — 20, 
to represent the king of Babylon as tormented in Sheol, 
for then no such popular opmion among the Jews pre- 
vailed. , 



THE WORB HADES. 79 

3d, But when our ILiord spoke the parable, Luke xvi. 
19 — 32, the opinion prevailed among the Jews, that 
there was torment in Hades. How they came to im- 
bibe this opinion, we have seen from Dr. Campbell 
above, and Mr. Stuart and his son, has traced the doc- 
trine of punishment in Hades to heathen origin. That 
our Lord in this passage, speaks in accordance with the 
heathen popular opinions, which prevailed in Judea at 
the time, is rather reluctantly admitted by Dr. Mack- 
night. Perhaps he foresaw the danger of admitting it. 
He says ^^ v. 23, seeth Abraham afar off and Lazarus 
in his bosom. Because the opinions as well as the lan- 
guage of the Greeks had by this time made their way 
into Judea, som6 ima^e that our Lord had their fic- 
ticms about the abodes of departed souls in his eye, when 
he formed this parable. But the argument is not con- 
clusive (where lies its defect ?) At the same time it 
must be acknowledged, that his descriptions of these 
things are not drawn from the writings of the Old 
Testament, but have a remarkable affinity to the de- 
scriptions which the Grecian poets have given of 
them. They, as well as our Lord, represent the abodes 
of the blessed as lying contiguous to the region of the 
danmed, and separated only by a great impassable river 
or gulf, in such a sort that the ghosts could talk with 
one another from its opposite banks. In the parable, 
3ouls whose bodies were buried, knew each other, and 
conversed together as if they had been embodied. In 
like manner, the Pagans introduce departed souls talk- 
ing together, and represent them as naving pains and 
pleasures analogous to what we feel in this life ; it seems 
they thought the shades of the dead had an exact re- 
semblance to their bodies. The parable says, the souls 
oi wicked men ard tormented in flames ; the. Grecian 
mytbologists tell us they lie in Pryiphligethon, which 
is a river of fire, where they sujSer the same torments 
they would have suffered while alive, had their bodies 
been burnt." 



80 AN IN<^UIRY INTO 

Macknight here confesses, 1st, that *' the opinions ass 
well as the language of the Greeks, had by this time 
made their way mto Judea." He also confesses, that 
our Lord^s descriptions about the abodes of departed souls 
are not drawn from the writings of the Old Testament, 
but have a remarkable affinity to the descriptions which 
the Grecian poets have ^ven of them." This confirms^ 
what Dr. Campbell and others stated above. 

2d, As it is admitted, our Lord's descriptions here 
about the abodes of departed souls, are not drawn from 
the writings of the Old Testament, and as such descrip- 
tions have a remarkable affinity to that of the Grecian 
poets, I ask, were those descriptions true ? If it is answer- 
ed yes, I then ask, why wer enot the sacred writers in the 
Old Testament, as able to give such descriptions as the 
Grecian poets ? If such descriptions, are here sanction- 
ed as truth by our Lord, it is evident the heathen had 
the honor of hi venting hell torments, and from them Jews 
and christians have learned this doctrine. But such a 
view of this paraUe, stands opposed to the whole usage 
of Sheol ana Hade$ in the Old and New Testaments. 
This is the solitary text, in a parable too, where Sheol 
or Hades can be supposed to teach future punishment. 
He who asserts, our Lord sancticmed this doctrine here, 
virtually says he understands the parable better than 
Christ's apostles, for not one of them so understood it. 
Who can think, they believed. — "that in Hades, She- 
ol, according to the views of Jes\u himself ihexe was a 
place of torment," yet never taught this doctrine to the 
world ? 

Should any one object — ^if our Lord m this parable, 
only spoke ia accommodation to the prevailing popular 
opinions, was he not liable to be misunderstood ? I 
answer no ; not any more, than when he spoke of de- 
mons, satan, ghosts, etc The scriptures, which the 
Jews had in their hands, were opposed to such a popu- 
lar op»ion, for they taught nothing about immortal souls ^ 



THE WORD HADES. 81 

departed soub, separate spirits, or their being torment- 
ed 'in Sheol or Hades. Nothing is said here about the 
soul of the rich man. I may add, if our Lord on this 
occasion, by speaking in accomodation to the popular 
opinions, meant to sanction them as truth, he acted con- 
trary to his usual practice on other occasions. I know 
of no instance, where he ever spoke pf a popular opin- 
ion, which had no sanction from the old Testament, 
with a view to sanction it as truth. Our Lord's work 
was to teach the truth, not to correct the popular modes 
of speaking. 

3d, There are other heathen popular opinions allud- 
ed to in the New Testament, which the Jews in the 
Old seem to have known nothing about. For example, 
what is more ccMtnmon in the New Testament, than to 
read of demons or Devils ; of persons possessed with 
them ; and of their being cast out of them. But noth- 
ing of this kind, is found in the Old Testament I 
might ask, how is this difference to be accounted for ? 
The answer, is precisely the same as in the case before 
us. In the days of Moses and the prophets, the popu- 
lar c^inions about demons, were unluiown among the 
Jews. But in the days of our Lord they were com- 
mon, and are often aUuded to in the New Testa- 
ment. But like torment in Hades, such opinions had 
been imlnbed by the Jews fixjm their intercourse with 
the heathen, after the Babylonian captivity. 

Sheoly in Isai. xiv. 9—20, and most other texts 
where it occurs, Mr. Stuart says, it means the grave, 
under-world, or the region of the dead. Why not 
interpret Hades, Luke xvi, 23 in the same way, for it 
is allowed on all hands, that Sheol and Hades are only 
the Hebrew and Greek names for the same place. 
Wakefield does interpret Hades so, for he says — " v. 
33 in the grave; en to ade; and conformably to this 
representaticm, he (the rich man) is spoken of as hav- 
ing a bodjr V. 24, It must b^ reipembered^ that Hades 



82 AN INQUIRY INTO 

no where means hell, gehenna in any author whatsoever, 
sacred or profane : and also, that our Lord is giving his 
hearers a parable (Math. xiii. 34) and not a piece of 
real history. To them, who regard thfe narrative as 
exhibiting a reality, it must stand as an unanswerable 
argument for the purgatory of the papists. The uni- 
versal meaning of Hades is — ^the state of death : be- 
cause the term sepulchrum, or grave, is not strictly ap- 
plicable to such as have been consumed by fire, etc. 
see V. 30." 

Understanding Hades then, in this parable to mean, 
what Sheol does, Isai. xiv. 9—20, all is plain, and nat- 
ural, and in agreement with the Old Testament. The 
only material difierence, between the two passages is, 
the rich man is said'to be in torment in Hades, and this 
dijSerence we think has been rationally accounted fcM* 
above. Hades, Sheol, grave, under-world, region of 
the dead, is here represented, in conformity to the pre- 
vailing opinions in our Lord's day, as a place of torment 
and this was only a small addition, to the popular opin- 
ions in the days of Isaiah. Since persons, had been re- 
presented as alive and fiill of animation in Sheol, or 
Hades, it was natural for the fancy of the poet, to de- 
scribe them as happy or miserable. 

Dr. Hammond on this passage says — "that this is 
not a story but a parable, may appear by Gamara Babyj. 
Ad. Cod. Berachoth, where thus much of it is set down, 
that a King made a great feast, and invited all the 
strangers, and there came one poor man and stood at 
his gates, and said unto them, give me one bit orpor- 
tion, and they considered him not, and he said, my Lord 
the king, of all the great feast thou hast made, is it 
hard in thine eyes to give me one bit or fragment among 
themJ^ He adds, the title of this parable is, " a par- 
able of a Jcinff of flesh and bloodJ* See also, my Let- 
ters to Mr. Hudson, for what Dr. Whitby has said re- 
epectbg this parable. The view? of Christians in for^ 



THE WORD HADES. 83 

mer ages, as stated by Jiiim, were very different respect- 
mg this parable from those which are now entertained. 

3d, The only other question to be considered is — 
what did, our Lord mean to teach when he uttered this 
parable ? That our Lord, was not speaking on the 
subject of a future state when he introduced it, is obvi- 
ous from the context. See verses 14 — 18. And no 
one ought to say, our Lord taught in parables, a doc- 
trine no where taught in plain language in the bible. 
But this must be said, if in this parable he did teacb^ 
that in Hades there is a place of , punishment. No 
Old or New Testament writer says Sheol or Hades is 
a place of torment ; a repositoiy for good or bad souls 
after death. Nor did our Lord's disciples so understand 
this parable. What our Lord uttered in parables, they 
were to proclaim on the house tops, or express in plain 
language. But none of them say. Hades is a place of 
torment, a doctrine they certainly would have taught, 
had they believed it announced by our Lord in this 
parable. 

What then did our Lord mean to teach, by so repre- 
senting Hades as a place of torment? This question 
may be answered, by asking one or two more. What 
did our Lord mean to teach, when he spoke of demons 
as real beings ? And what did he mean to teach, when 
he spoke of Satan as a real being Luke xiii. 10 — 18? 
Did he mean to recognize these beings as real ? We 
should think not ; but only availed himself of the pre- 
vailing popular opinions, in reasoning with his oppo- 
nents, to enforce his instructions and convince them. 
Is it not so here ? Our Lord was reasoning with the 
Pharasees, who believed the popular opinion, that in 
Hades there was a place of torment. They also pro- 
fessed faith in Moses's writings. But he here says, if 
they did not believe him to be the Messiah, from what 
Moses and the prophets had said concerning him, they 
would not be persuaded of this, if one commg from 



84 AN INQUIRY INTO 

Hades, their supposed repository of souls testified it to 
them. This view of the parable, is in conformity with 
our Lord's conduct and teaching on other occasions. 
But to suppose, he here teaches, that Hades is a place 
of torment after death, is at variance with the whole 
usage of Sheol and Hades in the bible. And why 
should we suppose he sanctions such a doctrine, which 
had its origin in heathenism. For further evidence of 
this and other remarks on this parable, see my Letters 
to Mr. Hudson, and Reply to Mr. Stuart's essays^ etc. 

Acts, ii. 27. " Because thou wilt not leave my soul 
(me) in hell (Hades) neither wilt thou suffer thine holy 
one to see corruption." Grave is evidently the sense 
of Hades here ; and refers to Christ who was raised 
fsom the dead. See Psal. xvi. 10. under Sheol. 

Acts ii. 31. " He ^eemg this before, spoke of the 
resurrection of Christ, that his soul (he) was not left in 
hell, (Hades), neither his flesh did see corruption." 
Grave as in the last text, the same as Sheol, Psal. 
xvi. 10. 

1 Cor. XV. 55. " O death, where is thy sting ? O 
grave, (Hades) where is thy victory ?*' Hades here 
plainly me9m grave, and was so understood by our 
translators. The grave shall not sdways retain its dead 
— hence the questicm — "O grave where is thy vic- 
twy ?" The dead shall be raised incorruptible. 

Rev. i. 18. ^' I am he that liveth, and was dead ; and, 
behold, I am alive for ever more, amen ; and have the 
keys of hell, (Hades), and of death." This is explain- 
ed by Acts ii. 27, 31, above. To have the keys of 
Hades or the grave, shows that Jesus has power to 
raise bom, the dead, which he will do in the last day. 

Rev. vi. 8. "And I looked, and behold a pale 
horse ; and his name that sat on him was death, and 
hdl (Hades) followed with him." Hades here evi- 
dently means grave. It follows death, as is here rep- 
resented. Mr. Stuart on this text observes — " here is 




THE WORI> RADSS. ' 85 

the king ctthe empire o! ^ dedd, with his subjects in 
his train. Hades, in this passage, stands for the inhabi- 
tants g( Hades; just as in innumerable ca^es, we em- 
ploy the name of a country in order to designate the 
mhabitants of the same.'' But I ask, is the kmg of the 
empke of the dead a living being ? Are his sulijects 
living beings ? No, the inhabitants of Hades the grarve, 
wte Hi the dead ; and death the king of terrors, of the 

Lve, shall reign over them until raised from the dead. 
1 Cor. XV. 55. above. 

Rev. XX. 13. "And the sea gave up the dead which 
in it; and death and hell, (Hades), delivered up 
the dead which were in them." Here death, "the 
king over the region of the dead,'' is again introduced. 
What then does this passage say he " delivered up ?" 
Was it — immortal souh^ which Jf«de«7delivered up? 
No. Were they living beings of any kind ? No ; not 
any more than the sea delivered up immortal souls or 
Kvmg beings. No; the sea delivered up the dead 
which were in it. And " death and Hades delivered 
op the dead which were in them.** But according to 
Ae common views of Hades in Luke xvi. 23, Hades 
ought to have delivered up the immortal souls which 
bad long been in torment there. Had John believed, 
as most people do now about Hades or hell, no doubt 
but he would have told us this. But wherever the 
resurrection of the dead is mentioned in scripture, not 
a word is said about immortal souls, coming forth from 
Hades, hell, or aiiy other place. But why not, if im- 
mortal souls are punished there froni death until the 
Tesuirection ? 

Rev. XX. 14. " And death and hell, (Hades), were 
east into ^e lake of fire ;.this is the second deatn." On 
this passage, Dr. Campbell pertinendy remarks — " If 
we interpret Hades, he% in the Christian sense of the 
word, die whole passage is rendered nonsense, fleff, 
is refuresented' as being cast into hell : for so the lake 

8 



86 AN INQUIRY INTO 

of fire, which is in this place also denominated the sec- 
ond death, is universally interpreted." 

Concerning the usage of Hades in the apocalypse, 
Mr. Stuart says — " it is the genuine Sheol of the He- 
brews ; with the exception, perhaps, that the Hebrew 
sacred books have no where represented Hades as 
having a king over it." I then ask, does John in this 
book say, that in Hades there is a Tartarus? No. 
Why then did Mr. Stuart say above, " that in the He- 
brew Sheol there was a Tartarus?" Does he know 
more about this than John did ? The reason, why the 
Hebrew sacred books, have no where represented She- 
ol or jHades as having a king over it, is obvious. This 
popular opinion, like many others derived irom the 
heathen, was unknown to the ancient Hebrews. They 
knew of no king, God, or devil, who ruled in Sheol, or 
that it was a place of torment for the wicked. 

Such are all the passages where Hades occurs in the 
New Testament. Let the reader now judge, what 
foundation they afford, for the doctrine, that Hades is 
a place of future punishment. In addition to the re- 
marks, made on the general usage of Sheol above, we 
add here the following respecting Hades. 

1st, It will not be disputed by any man, that what 
the Hebrew writers of the Old Testament expressed 
by the word Sheol, the Greeks expressed by the word 
Hades. 

2d, But observe, that the heathen Greeks not only 
attached similar ideas to the word Hades, as the He- 
brew writers did to the word Sheol, but also the addi- 
tional idea, that in Hades persons were punished or re- 
warded, according to their merits or demerits in the 
present world. This punishment was by fire. This 
was their own addition ; for no such idea seems to be 
conveyed in all the Old Testament, by the word SheoL 
ThQ very circumstance, that Hades, and not Sheoly is 
represented as a place of torment, shows, that this doc- 



THE WOKD HADES. 87 

trine is of heathen origin. Hades is a Greek word ; 
and it is well known that Greek was the language of 
the heathen, and Hebrew that of the Jews. There is 
nothing then, but what we ought to expect, in the use 
of the term Hades in the New Testament. Besides, 
the Jews had blended many of the heathen notions 
with their own religion. If we then find the New Tes- 
tament writers, in using the Greek word Hades, speak 
as if this was a place of punishment, it is easily ac- 
counted for without admitting that they believed any 
such thing, or wished to inculcate this doctrine as a part 
of divine revelation. But of this they have been very 
sparing ; for only in the parable of the rich man and 
Lazarus, can it be supposed there is any allusion to 
such an idea. All the other places where they use the 
term Hades, it is plain no such doctrine seems to be 
hinted at, but the reverse. In face of these facts and 
drcurastances, and current usage of the word Hades, 
we think it would be well for persons to pause and re- 
flect, before they attempt to establish the doctrine of 
future misery from the language of a parable. If a 
Universalist was obliged to establish his views fix)m a 
parable, and in face of so much etidence to the contra- 
ry, he would be considered as driven to the last extrem- 
ity for proof in support of his system, and that finally it 
must be abandoned as indefensible. But this parable 
is considered as the most plain and conclusive part of 
Scripture, in proof of a place of endless misery. It is 
considered more conclusive than all the passages which 
speak of Gehenna. What critics and orthodox com- 
mentators, give up as no proof of the doctrine, by the 
least informed, is considered as the very strongest. 

3d, Since neither Sheol, Hades, nor hell, originally sig- 
nified a place of endless misery, we have a few questions 
to put to those who believe in this doctrine. We ask, 
then, is it not a perversion of the divine oracles, to quote 
any of the texts in which Sheol or Hades occurs, to 



88 AN lN€tUlKY INTO 

pi-Qve it ? It is well known, that such texts are often 
quoted for this purpose. But I ask again, is it not a 
very great iniposition upon the ignorant, to quote such 
texts m proof of this doctiioe ? The simple, honest- 
hearted English reader of his bible, has been taught from 
a child, that heU means a place of endless misery for 
the wicked. Every book he reads, every sermon he 
hears, all tend to deepen his early impressions, and con- 
finn him in this opinion. Those who know better, are not 
much disposed to undeceive him. On the one hand, 
they are perhaps deterred from it by a false fear of dis- 
turbing public opini(xi, and on the other, by reluctance 
to encounter the odium of the Christian public, in beinc 
looked on as heretics. Select the most celebratea 
preacher you can find, and let him frankly tell his audi- 
ence, that Sheol, Hades, nor hell, originally meant a 
place of endless misery, and his celebrity is at an end. 
He would from that moment be considered as an here- 
tic, and his fonner admirers would now be his warm op- 
}X)sers. But I ask again, and I solemnly put it to every 
man's conscience, who professes to fear God, — Ought 
not men to be honestly told the truth about this, let the 
consequences be what they may ? Are we at liberty to 
l>ervert the scriptures in frivor of any sect, or system in 
the woAA ? Must we be guilty of a pious fraud, in con- 
cealing from people what they ought to know, because 
the disclosure may excite popular prejudices against 
ourselves, and afford cause of suspicion that the doc- 
trine of endless misery is not true ? If it be true, it cdUf 
and must be supported from other texts than those m 
which Sheol and Hades are used. Perhaps some may 
think, if all tliose texts are given up, some of the princi- 
jyal supports of the doctrine are removed. Well, allow- 
ing this true, would any aoe wish to retain them, but 
sikIi as are determined to hold fast the doctrine of eter- 
nal misery at all hazards ? It is a false system of reli- 
&>>n« or those who embrace it do not know how to de-i 



THE WOBD HADES. 89 

&nd it, who wish to support it by perverting a single 
text of. scripture. To found the doctrine of endless mis- 
ery on the texts which speak of Sheol or Hades, is 
building on the sand. When the building is assailed by 
reason and argument, and an appeal to the Bible, it 
must fall, if it has no better support. Even, if it could 
be proved true from other texts, this is calculated to 
bring the doctrine into suspicion. 

4th, The translators of our common English version, 
appear to have had more correct ideas about Sheol, 
Hades or hell, than most people who read their transla- 
tion. They certainly were at some pains, to guard us 
against attaching to the word hell, the idea of a place of 
misery. In many places where they render Sheol and 
Hades by the word hell, they have put grave in the 
margin. Besides ; let it be remembered, that the word 
hell originally signified the same as Sheol and Hades. 
It was then the very best word they could use in render- 
ing these two words. If men now have fixed a differ- 
ent sense ,to the word hell, the translators are not to 
blame. Admitting, that when our translation was made, 
jit had acquired the s^nse of a place of endless misery, 
what could the translators do but use this word in ren- 
dering Sheol and Hades ? It meant the same as those 
words originally ; and to prevent misunderstanding, they 
frequently put grave in the margin. They no doubt 
thought, that this, together with the context, was securi- 
ty against all misapprehension. Unfortunately this has 
not been the case. But no blame attaches to them, 
for they must in this case have either coined a new word, 
expressed themselves by a circumlocution, used always 
the word grave, or left these words untranslated. I am 
incUned to think, that if Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, and 
Gehenna, had been left.untranslated, few persons would 
ever have thought, that by any of these words a place 
of misery after death was meant. Every reader would 
then have been obliged to consult the context, wherev- 

8* 



90 AN INQUIRY INTO 

er these wcHrds were used, to attain the sense of the 
writer. Obliged to do this, he would soon have become 
familiar with them, and must ha.ve seen, irom the way 
in which they were used, that the idea of a place of fu- 
ture misery was never intended to be conveyed by them. 
Let any one go over all the texts where these words are 
found, and put this remark to a fair trial. It is true, 
that our translators, in rendering the word Gehenna, 
have also used the word hell. But here again, what 
could the^ do, for this word had acquired a new sense. 
This new sense they supposed answered to the word 
Gehenna, the place of endless misery. Here they were 
under the necessity of either again coining a new word, 
leaving Gehenna untranslated, or expressing themselves 
by a circumlocution. We doubt if the translators were 
at liberty to do any of these, without shocking public 
prejudice, and exciting the displeasure of those in high 
authority, under whose patronage they made their trans- 
lation. They were not left at liberty to give us the best 
translation, which their own judgments, and the progress 
of Biblical criticism, even at that day, could have afford- 
ed. In proof of this, see the king's instructions to the 
translators. 

5th, Several very serious evils arise from understanding 
Sheol or Hades to mean a place of endless misery. In 
the first place, it is a perversion of those' texts in which 
these words occur. This perversion of them leads to 
a misunderstanding of many others. By this means the 
knowledge such texts convey, is not only lost, but our 
knowledge of the word of God is greatly retarded, and 
our minds are perplexed and embarrassed on other con- 
nected subjects. Every text of Scripture misunder- 
stood, lays a foundation for a misunderstanding of oth- 
ers ; and thus error is not only rendered perpetual but 
progressive. But this is not all. Understanding She- 
ol and Hades to mean a place of endless misery, is per- 
verting God's word to caricature himself. It b putting 



t 



THE WORD TARTARUS. 91 

our own sense on his words, to make him say things 
agamst ourselves which he never intended. It is giv- 
ing a false cdor to the language of the bible^ that we 
may support the false views we entertain of his charac- 
ter, and his dealings with the children of men. 

6th, I may just add about Hades, what was noticed 
about Sheol, that we never find the words eternal, ever- 
lasting, or forever, used in connexion with it, or cop- 
ceming it. We never read of an everlasting or eter- 
nal Hades or hell, or that men are to be pumshed in it 
forever. Nothing like this is to be found in scripture. 
Such epithets added to the word hell, found in books 
and sermons, are among the improvements in divinity 
which man's wisdom teachetha The word heU is first 
perverted fix)m its origmal signification, and then the word 
ttenud is added to it, to make the. punishment of end- 
less duration. 



SECTION III. 

2 PET£R, ii. 4, CONSIDERED. 

" For if God spared not the Angels that sinned, but 
cast them down to hell, (Tartarosas), and delivered them 
into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment." 
See Jude 6, to which I shall also advert in my remarks. 

Although the word Tartarus^ does not occur in the 
Kble, yet the word Tartarosas occurs m this single 
It is 



text. It is equivelent to Tartarus ; it signifies — " to 
cast into Tartarus" See Parkhurst. Professor Stu- 
art asserts — " that a place of punishment is here indi- 
cated by Tartarus, is put beyond all doubt by the con- 
text * he spared not,' * chains of darkness,' ' imprisoi^ed 
for judgment or condemnation." But what is there in 



92 AN INQUIRY INTO 

these expressions, which says, the angels, or any other 
beings, suffered pain or misery in Tartarus ? They are 
not even said to be alive there, far less suffering torment. 
In my reply to his Essays, I have considered pretty ful- 
ly, what he says about Tartarus. See also a quotation 
from Dr. Campbell in the preceding section, which re- 
lates to this subject. In what follows, I shall principal- 
ly confine the readers attention, to what I consider the 
true sense of the passage, or passages in question. 

1st, Let us examine what period is referred to, call- 
ed in the one passage simply "jW^men^," and in the 
other, '' the judgment of the great dayJ^ These ex- 
pressions, are supposed to refer to a " day of general 
judgment/' at the end of this material world. But I 
know of no sacred writer, who uses such language, to 
describe such a day, I find however this, or very sim- 
ilar language used, to describe God's judgments on the 
Jewish nation at the close of the Mosaic dispensation. 
" The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon 
into blood before the great and terrible day of the 
Lord come,'' Joel, ii. 31. Peter, Acts ii. 20. quotes 
these words, and appUes them to this very event. 
Again, Malachi iv, 5. says, " behold, I will send you 
Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and 
dreadful day of the Lordy" in reference to the same 
event. Our Lord, alluding to this period said, Luke 
xxi. 22 — " For these be the days of vengeance, that 
all things which are written may be fulfilled." And 
adds. Math. xxiv. 21, ** For then shall be great tribu- 
lation, such as was not since the beginning of the world 
to this time, no, nor ever shall be." But are the tribu- 
lations of this supposed day of judgment, to be less 
than the tribulations which came on the Jewish nation 
at the destruction of Jerusalem ? If not, how can our 
Lord's words be true ? In Rev. vi. 17. we read also of 
" the great day^' and " the ffreat day of God Almigh- 
ty ;" but no man will say, Uiat this refers to a day of 



THE WOBP TARTABUS. 93 

general judgment at the end of this world. The con* 
text shows, this cannot be meant. 

2d, Let us now consider, who are referred to by the 
angels y that kept not their first estate^ (priscipalitf ), 
but left Uieir own habitation ? The reader ou^t to no- 
tice particularly, that neither of the texts, give the 
least intimation, that tfiey were angelic Spirits^ sinned 
in heaven, and were cast out of it. It is said they sin- 
ned, but not in heaven; They k^t not their first es- 
tate, but left their own habitation, but it is not said, this 
habitation was heaven. Indeed, if we admit, angelic 
S^ritSy once sinned in heaven and were cast out of it, 
what security is there, that this may not take place 
again ; yea, that all who are there may not become sin- 
nesr, and share the simie &te ? The questioi\ then is — 
what angels are here referred to? I* answer, it is well 
known the term rendered angel, is not a name of na^ 
Ure but of office. It is firequently rendered messenger 
aad is often applied to human beisgs. Some have* 
thought, the angels here m^itioned, were tlie spies sent 
out to view the land of Canaan. I am of opinion bow- 
ever, that Korah and his company, are the angels here 
feferred to ; the history of whom is given, Num. 16tii., 
My reasons for entertaining this opmion, I shall briefly^ 
detail, and let the reader juc^e for himself. 

1st, K(»^ and his company were two hundred and 
fifty princes of the assembly, &mous in tbe congrega- 
tion, men of renown." Num, 16. 2. From the high 
station, which they held in the congregatioo, with scrip- 
tural propriety they might be termed Angels. Cer- 
tainly, with just as much propriety, as men are call- 
ed uisigels in many other passages. See for example 
Rer. Chaps. 2d. and 3d. 

5M, It will not be questioned, Korah and his compa- 
ny sinned : and their sin was, they kept not their first 
estate, or the station God assigned them in the congre- 
gatioii of Israel. They raised a rebelUon against Moses 



94 AN INQUIRY INTO 

and Aaron, Num. 16: 3, with a view to their own pre- 
eminence. They sought the priesthood also v. 10. 
Certainly, the passage applies much better to them than 
Angelic Spirits, who sinned in heaven, and were cast 
out of it. People, are more indebted to Milton's para- 
dise lost, than to then* bible for the information, that an- 
gelic Spirits smned in heaven and were cast down to 
Tartarus. 

3d, The connexion in which the passage is introduced, 
favors this view of the subject. Peter, in verses 1 — 4, 
speaks of false teachers, and the troubles which their 
heresies gave to the congregation of Christians. At 
the close of verse 3, he says of them, whose judgment 
now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation 
slumbereth not." Was it not then very natural for him, 
in verse 4, to refer to Korah and his company, who pro- 
duced sunilar troubles in the congregation of Israel and 
the judgment which came on them ? He then from 
verse 5 — 9, mentions God's judgments on the Old 
world and the cities of the plain, confessedly inflicted 
on human beings, and. of a temporal nature. It is yery 
incongruous then to suppose, that in verse 4, he referred 
to Angelic beings, and punishment of endless duration 
in another world. But the connexion of the parallel 
text in Jude, is still more clearly in favor of the view I 
have given. Jude, verse 4, also speaks of false teach- 
ers, and the pernicious effects of their teaching on oth- 
'ers. He adds, by way of warning verse 5, " I will 
therefore put you m rememberance, though ye once 
knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people 
out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them 
that believed not." And what could be more natural, 
than for him in verse 6, to refer to Korah and his com- 
pany, as a signal example of God's destroying such un- 
believers ? It is certainly more rational, than to sup- 
pose, he immediately breaks off, and mtroduces an ex- 
ample of God's judgment on Angels who sinned in heav- 



THE WORD TABTARUS. 95 

en. He also refers in verse 9, to God's judgments on 
the cities of the plain. But if verse 6, refers to Angel- 
ic Spirits^ we must conclude, that he first gives an ex- 
ample in general of God's judgments on men v. 5, then 
in V. 6y starts oS and gives an example of his judgment 
on angelic Spirits in heaven, and then comes back to his 
judgments on men in the destruction of Sodom and Go- 
morrah. But if my views are admitted, it makes both 
writers, refer to temporal judgments on men, uniform- 
ly throughout both passages. Certainly all will allow, 
it is not the custom of the sacred writers, to blend in 
this way, examples of God's judgments on men and 
ai^els t(^ether. If it is done here, another example of 
the kind, cannot be produced from the bible. 

4th, It will be admitted, that all the other examples 
mentioned in the, contexts of these passages, of God's 
judgments on men, were adduced as a warning to un- 
godly men. They are all of a temporal nature, and are 
calculated for this purpose. But, if we understand by 
Angeh in these passages angelic Spirits, how could 
God's casting them out of heaven down to Tartarus, 
be any warning to ungodly men ? N.o man had seen 
this done, or bad any means of knowing the fact, if it 
was true. It rested entirely on Peter and Jude's state- 
ments in these passages, for no other sacred writer ever 
mentions such a remarkable event, as angels' sinning in 
heaven and being cast down to Tartarus. But the case 
of Korah and his company, is detailed at length in the 
Jewish Scriptures, was well known, and calculated to be 
a warning to those who lived ungodly. But it will be 
asked, what Tartarus did God cast them down to ? — 
Further evidence of my views will be then given by 
considering this. viz. 

3d, The punishment here said to have been inflicted 
on them. Peter says, God " spared not the Angels that 
sinned but cast them down to helly (Tartarosas), and 
delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved 



96 AN INQ^UIRT INTO 

unto judgnoent." Jude says, ^^ He hath reserved them 
in everlasting chains of darkness, unto the judgment of 
the great day." Let us here inquire, 1st, What Pe- 
ter meant by Tartcarm 1 Mr. Stuart says, as ^^ to the 
uius loquendi of the classics, in Greek, the word Tar- 
tarus is employed to designate a supposed subterranean 
region, as deep down below the upper part of Htjuksy 
as the earth is distant from heaven. It is the place 
where the distinguished objects of Jupiter's vengeance 
are represented as being confined and tormented. It is 

f laced in opposition to, or in distinction fi*om Elysimn. 
remark moreover, that the heathen had no apprehen- 
sion of deliverance from Tartarus. Tantalus, Sisyphus^ 
Ixion, and all others sent there, were doomed to end^ 
hss punishment, in view of the Greeks and Romans." 
Such are the views given us of Tartarus by Mr. Stuart ; 
and it is commonly supposed, that in this sense Peter 
Qs,ed the word Tartarus in the passage before us. But, 
in the preceeding section it has been fiilly shown, that 
Tifrtarus and the punishment there, were heathen fic- 
tions, and were originally of Egyptian origin. The 
Egyptians furnished the first hints, and the Greeks and 
Romans manufactured a tremendous hell out of them. 

But Mr. Stuart is obliged to confess, that the above 
is not the exclusive sense, in which classical writers 
use the term Tartarug. He says — " it is occasionsdly 
employed, in the later classic writers, for the under^' 
ifforM in general ; but in such a connexion as to show, 
that it is cmly when writers mean to speak of the whole 
as a region of gloom, that they call it Tartarus,'*^ This 
concession of Mr. Stuart, is enough for our purpose, to- 
gether with his explanations of Sheol and Hades, He 
concedes, that " the later classic writers," use Tartar 
TU8 for the tmder'World in general, ^^ which is his gen- 
eral sense of Sheol and Hades, as seen above. And 
he also coocedes, that they use it in this sense, when 
they " mean to speak of the whole as a region of 



*•* 



THE WOM) TAR^TAtUS. 97 



gloom/' With these concessiohs iii View, I observe 
1st, Peter was a later scripture writet. This answers 
to "the later classic writei^/' ot whom Mr. Stuart 
spieaks. And if they used the word Tartarus, " for 
tne under-world ill geneml," ahd not for a place of 
punishment, why not allow Peter to use it in the same 
sense in this passage ? But the reader may notice, he 
speaks of it, not as a place of fire and torment, which 
tne heathen did concemmg theii: Tdrtarusy but as the 
Hebrews spoke of She'ol. 

2d, But we are told, when the "later classic writers," 
tteed Tartanis for the under-world, it was " in such a 
tonnectibn as to show, that it is only wheii writers mean 
to speak of the whole as a region of gloom that they 
call it Tartarus.'' Well, all I ask, is, to allow Peter 
the same privilege taken by these classic Writers. This 
Cannot with any sho\^ of reason be denied him. The 
question then is, does Peter show from the connection, that 
fie means to speak of Tartarus as a place of punish- 
ment, yea of endless punishment ; or does he speak of it 
as the under-tcrorld, a region of gloom ? In the latter 
sense, as I shall now attempt to show. Let it then be 
observed — 1st, Whoever may be meant by the Angels 
in the passage above, they are not said to be suffering 
any pain now in Tartarus. Nor is it even said, that 
they are reserved there to suffer pain or torment at the 
day of judgment mentioned. If it is maintained, the 
Angels mentioned are Angelic spirits, the passage h§is 
no reference to human beings at all. 

3d, If Peter used the term Tartarus, in the sense of 
a place of misery, or " endless punishment in view of 
the Greeks and Romans," he did what no other scrip- 
ture writer did before him. Not one of them ever uses 
this tertti, which shows they cared nothing about Tar-^ 
torus. But, had they believed this doctrine of endless 
punishment, and that Tartarus was the most " signifi- 
cant " word the Greek language afforded to express it, 

9 



98 AN INQUIRY INTO 

why do they all avoid this word? Mr. Stuart asks 
— " What term then, in order to express the horrors of 
future punishment, could Peter select from the whole 
Greek language, which was more significant than Tar- 
tarosas ?V This question implicates, not only the sacred 
writers, but even the holy spirit, as not knowing what 
word was most " significant^ to express the horrors of 
future punishment." 

3d, But if Peter used the term Tartarus^ " for the 
under-world in general," as "it is occasionally employ- 
ed in the later classic writers," he agrees with all the 
scripture writers in their usuage of Sheol and Hades, 
and even with those classic writers also. What is more 
common, than to put a part for the whole, or the whole 
for a part in the language of scripture ? Tartarus was 
supposed to be a part of Hades, and hore a part is used 
for the whole. In Luke xvi. 23, the whole, Hades, is 
put for a part, Tartarus ; for according to the represen- 
tation given, the rich man was in Tartarus, yet he is 
said to be in Hades. 

4th, But we are told, this word was used for the un- 
der-world, " in such a connection as to show, that it is 
only when writers mean to speak of the whole as a re- 
gion of gloom, that they call it Tartarus,^^ If Peter 
then used it in " such a connection," as to show, he' 
meant " to speak of the whole as a region of gloom," 
the question is settled. Does he then say, either in the 
text or context, that Tartarus was a place of torment ? 
No. Does he intimate the ancels were alive in Tartarus ? 
No. Does he then speak oi it as a region of gloom ? 
Certainly he did. Hear him ; " for if God spared not 
the aneels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (Tar- 
tarosas)." Well did he deliver them there into flames 
and torments ? No. He " delivered them into chains 
of darkness.^' Is not this " a region of gloom 1 Let 
us hear Jude — " The angels which kept not their first 
estate but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in 



THE WORD TARTARUS. 99 

everlasting chains of darkness,^^ Is not this again, a 
region of gloom ? This is too palpable I thmk to be 
denied. 

Let us now see, how this agrees to Korah and his 
company, as the angels who sinned and were cast down 
to Tartarus? In Num. xvi. 31 — 33, it is said, *^The 
ground clave asunder that was under them ; and the earth 
opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their 
houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, 
and all their goods. They and all that appertained to 
them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed 
upon them ; and they perished from among the con- 
CTegation." See on this text under Sheol above. 
They went down alive into the pit, (Sheol). Well, 
is not Sheol often represented as a region of gloom ? 
Yea, does not the very word Sheol, as Dr. Campbell 
has told us, mean, " obscure, hidden, invisible. The 
state is always represented under those figures which 
suggest something dreadful, dark and silent." 

To the views of this passage, which have now been 
stated, it may be objected — Does not Jude say, the an- 
gels that sinned, are " reserved in everlasting chains of 
darkness, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great 
day. I answer yes, but it has been shown, that the 
judgment of the great day, does not refer to a general 
judgment at the end of this world, but to the judgment\ 
of God on the Jews at the close of their dispensation. 
Now, though Korah and his company were punished 
on the spot for their rebellion, yet we are told, all 
the sins of the Jews as a nation, which had been com- 
mitted during past ages, were at that time visited 
on the nation. On that generation came all the right- 
eous blood which had been shed on the earth. Of 
course the rebellion of Korah and his company is includ- 
ed. They were delivered into chains of darkness ; 
to be reserved unto this judgment ; when God's signal 
vengeance was poured out on the whole nation for all 



100 AN INQUIRY INTO 

their rebellion and wickedness. Chains of darkness y is 
a figure for the power of darkness, for who can burst 
the bands of death, who can return from Sheol to the 
land of the living? The word everlasting connected 
with chains of darkness in Jude, can occasion no diffif 
culty. Those who have attended to the scripture usage 
of this word must see, it is often used for a lunited time, 
and sometimes even for a short period of time. From 
the time of Korah's rebellion to the destruction of Jeru* 
salem, was a much longer everlastingy than some ever- 
lastings, mentioned in scripture. 

Though enough has been said, showing that punish- 
ment in Hades is a heathen notion, it may be of some 
use to see what were the .views entertained by the an^ 
cient heathen about Hades and Tartarus. M. Le. 
Clerc, in his ReUgion of the Ancient Greeks, p. 141 — 
154. — thusr writes i—T-'* In general, the doctrine of a fu- 
ture life has been adopted by all nations, at least by all 
those that deserve to be cited as examples. Legisla- 
tors considered it as the most effectual curb for restrain- 
ing the passions of men, and they have employed eve- 
ry argument to establish this salutary doctrine, as we 
may bo convinced by attending to the descriptions 
which the ancients have left us of Hell. 

" This word signified among them the residence of 
souJs. Thither, after death, they repaired in crowds to 
receive remuneration for their deeds. Minos sat as 
judge, and as the names were drawn out of the fatal urn, 
he distributed to each Ins merited punishment or re- 
ward. Pluto, seated on a throne of ebony, presided 
over the infernal regions ; because, as we have already 
observed, in the symbolical religion of the ancients, part 
of which was de(ficated to the worship of the stars, win- 
ter was the night of Nature, and because the sun at 
that time took the name of King of the Shades. For 
this reason Pluto, who represented the sun, makes so 
iipportaut a figure in mysteries destined to describe the 



THE WORB TARTARUS. 101 

empire of the dead. That gloomy region was situated 
at an immense distance, far beyond the limits of this 
universe. According to the author of the Theogony, 
'as &r as the heaven is distant from the earth, so far is 
the earth removed from the dark abyss. A mass of 
iron, falling from the top of the starry heavens, would 
take nine days and nine nights before it reached the sur- 
face of the earth ; and it would require the same time 
in falling from thence to Tartarus,* the place destined 
for the punishment of the wicked. 

" This frightful abode was said to be twice as deep 
as it is distant from the brilliant summit of Olympus. 
It was surrounded by a triple wall, it was bathed by the 
flaming waters of Cocytus arid of Phlegethon, and tow- 
ers of iron guarded the entrance. The cruel Tysiphone 
watched night and day at the gate, armed with serpents, 
which she shook over the heads of the guilty. Their 
groans, their doleful cries, mixed with the sound of their 
stripes, cause the wide abyss to resound. There are 
forever shut up the impious Titans, and those no less 
audacious mortals who dared to resist the divinity; 
Tityus, Ixion, Pirithous, and the impious Salmoneous. 
Perjury, adultery, incest, and parricide, are likewise 
punished ; and those whose life has been sullied with 
odious crimes ; those who have not respected the ties 
<jf blood, who have waged unjust wars, who have sold 
their country ; those who have dared to commit enor- 
mous wickedness, and enjoyed the fruit of their crimes, 
are all consigned to the most cruel torments. 

"We may conceive what impression these images 
would make on the mind, when unceasingly presented 
to the eyes from earliest infancy. It is not to be doubt- 
ed, that if the hope of felicity unbounded leads to vir- 
tue, the idea of endless punishment must have a still 
stronger influence on the conduct. The religion of the 
ancients, which to us appears of so light a nature that 
we are apt to believe its only end was to flatter the sens- 

9* 



102 AN m^UIRY INTO 

es, yet employed the most proper means fer restraining 
the outrageous multitude."* k akrmed them on all 
sides with the most firight&il representations. A poet 
of antiquity paints, in the stfcmgest colors, that continu- 
al terror which takes possession of the human heart, 
which disturbs and poisons the pleasures of life, and 
which in every part of the earth has erected temples 
for the purpose of conciliating the gods. Plato^ in the 
beginning of the first book of his Republic, represents 
an old man seized with fear at the approach of death, 
and full of inquietude with regard to objects that never 
occupy the season of health. Then it is, says he, that 
^e reflect on our crunes, on. the injustice we have com- 
mitted, and that often, in our agitation, we start in our 
sleep, and are frightened like chUdreB.-^ As soon as 
some were found amoi^ the ancients who had eyer- 
C(»ne these fears, it was {N^etended that such had never 
existed among them: we might as reasonably judge 
of the public belief at this day, by the opinions in 
which some modem writers have been pleased to in- 
dulge themselves. The testim^iy of those of amiqui- 
ty who opposed the prejudices of their times, their 
very attempt to dissipate thosa fears, and to turn them 
into ridicule, rather proves how deeply they were root- 
ed. Observe, with what solicitude, Lucretius every 
where endeavors to burst the bonds of religion, and to 
fortify his readers agsunst the tfareatenings of eternal 
punishment. The observation of Juvenal, so often cit- 
ed, that nobody in bis day believed in the fabtes of 
hell, is that of an enlightened mind, which takes no 
part in thfit opimons of the vulgar. The same thing is 

* The doctrine of eodkm punjtihnieiit amoDff the haitben, did not majke 
them moral men, as facti ^ov^ Noi: haa it done this among christiaA8> 
80 all most admit. ThQ Apoetle^ preacbod the love of Qod in the gift of 
hit Son. This prodliced holiAew, and it will do so again. 

t Pqeaching endle«» hell tormenMi in the presemt dwr> prodpcea not ei^ly 
fear, but many catM of inanity and vuicifle. €ap Gpd be the author of 
■udi a doctrine 1 



THE WOSD TARTARUS. 103 

to he said of what we read in Cicero> and in some other 
vixitexsy oa the same subject : and when Virgil exclaims, 
^ happy the man that can tread under foot inexorable 
Destiny^ and the noise of devouring Acheron/ he indi- 
cates^ in a manner sufficiently precise, ^t it was the 
province of philosophy alone to shake off the yoke of 
custom, riveted by education. 

" Those who were unable to conquer these vain ter- 
rors, found consolations of a different kind. Religion 
stretched forth her kind hand to encourage their hopes, 
and to relieve their despondency. When remorse had 
brought back, within her pale, an unfortunate wandeirer 
from the paths of justice, she informed him that, by a 
true confession of his guilt, and sincere repentance for- 
giveness was to be obtained. With this^ view expia- 
Uny sacrifices were instituted, by means of which the 
guilty expected to participate in the happiness of the 
>ist." 

Such were the views of the ancient Greeks about 
Hades, or Tartarus, and its punishment. There is con- 
siderable similarity in the above quotaticm to same de- 
scriptions given of hell torments by modem preachers. 
I shaU leave all to their own reflection on it. One or 
two things I shall merely notice. 

1st, The ckx^trine of punishmeiit in Tartarm, seems 
to have ori^ted with legators, for the purpose of 
restraining the passions of the multitude, and to alarm 
^'them on all sides with the most frightful represen- 
Utions.*' 'Hie Persians, Chaldeans, Egyptians, and 
Greeks, all introduced punishment after death. The 
Jewish nation is an exception. Some deistical \vriters 
have blamed Moses as a legislator for not introducing 
^ eternal punishment into his code of laws, as a curb on 
men against licentiousness. It is generally allowed that 
the punishments threatened in the Old Testament are 
of a temporal nature. 

2d, From the above quotation it appears, that though 



104 AN INQUIRY, &C. 

punishment after death in Tartarus was believed by the 
heathen generally, yet the better informed among them 
did not believe " in the fables of helly'^ bift turned 
them into ridicule^ Juvenal took no part in those 
opinions of the vulgar ; and Virgil says — " it was the 
province of philosophy alone to shake off the yoke of 
custom, riveted by education." Is it not then strange, 
that a doctrine, which was invented by heathens, and 
treated with contempt by their own wisest men, should 
be a fimdamental article in the faith of Christians ? 

3d, I may just add, that when the heathen were 
made converts to the Christian faith, all allow, that 
many of their previous notions were soon incorporated 
with it. This, together with the erroneous views held 
by the Jewish converts, laid a foundation for such a 
corruption of Christianity, which, if it were not attest- 
ed by evidence indisputable, could not be believed. 
That punishment in Tartarus^ is not a part of this cor- 
ruption of Christianity derived from the heathen, de- 
serves to be seriously considered. The evidence we 
have adduced, proving that it is, we submit to the read 
er'sjudgment. 

To conclude this chapter. We have shown, that 
neither Sheol, Hades, nor Tartarus, is ever used by 
the sacred writers to signify a place of endless misery 
for the wicked. This was all we were bound to do, in 
opposing the common opinion on this subject. But we 
have also shown, that this opinion originated with the 
heathen; and that the Jews learned it from them. 
To invalidate the evidence which has been produced, 
the very reverse must be proved. See note in the first 
edition, or the improved version on 2 Peter and Jude. 



^ 



CHAPTER II. 



GEHENNA, UNIFORMLY TRANSLATED HELL IN THE NEW 
TEBTAMIE^NT, CONSIDERED AS A PLACE OF ETERNAL 
PUNISHMENT. 

We have now arrived at a part of this Inquiry, which 
requires the utmost attention. The New Testament is 
considered as teaching the doctrine of endless misery to 
all the wicked, and Gehenna is the place in which they 
are said to suffer it. The truths or falsehood of thiis 
doctrine, is then at issue upon the decision of the ques- 
tion, — PFhat is the Scriptva-e meaning and usage of the 
word Gehenna! 



SECTION I. 

REMARKS ON DR. CAMFBELl's VIEWS OF GEHENNA. 

WE have seen, from a consideration of all the texts 
in which Sheol, Hades,, and Ta/rtarus occur, that these 
words never ought to have been translated hell, at leo^st 
in the sense in which it is Used by most Christians. 
Tlii|5 is confirmed by Dr. Campbell, and other writers, 
who were believers in the doctrine of eternal misery. 

The wordy and I beUeve the only word, which is 
supposed to express the place of eternal misery in the 



106 ' AN INQ,UIBY INTO 

Bible, is the term Gehenna, As Dr. Campbell con- 
clusively proves, that Sheol, Hades, and Tartarus, do 
not mean this place, he as positively asserts, that this is 
always the sense of Gehenna in the New Testament. 
He thus writes in his 6th preliminary dissertation, part 
ii. sect. 1. — "That Gehenna is employed in the New 
Testament to denote the place of future punishment, 
prepared for the devil and his angels, is indisputable. 
In the Old Testament, we do not find this place in the 
same manner mentioned. Accordingly, the word Ge- 
herma does not occur in the Septuagint. It is not a 
Greek word, and consequently not to be found in the 
Grecian classics. It is originally a compound of the 
two Hebrew words ge Ainnom, the valley of Hinnom, 
a place near Jerusalem, of which we hear first in the 
book of Joshua, xv. 8. It was there that the cruel 
sacrifices of children were made by fire to Moloch, the 
Ammonitish idol, 2 Chron. xxxiii. 6. The place was 
also called tophet, 2 Kings xxiii. 10. and that, as is 
supposed, firom the noise of drums, toph signifying a 
drum, a noise raised on purpose to drown the cries of 
the helpless infants. As this place was, in process of 
time, considered as an emblem of hell, or the place of 
torment reserved for the punishment of the wicked in a 
future state, the name tophet came gradually to be used 
in this sense, and at length to be confined to it. — ^This 
is the sense, if I mistake not, in which Gehenna a sy- 
nonymous term, is always to be understood in the New 
Testament, where it occurs just twelve times. In ten 
of these there can be no doubt ; in the other two, the 
expression is figurative ; but it scarcely will admit a 
question, that the figure is taken firom that state of mis- 
ery which awaits the impenitent." Such is the state- 
ment given by Dr. Campbell. It will be easily per- 
ceived, that the whole of it is assertion. Resolved, not 
to take this very important article on bare assertion, I 
have considered it as carefiiUy as I could, and shall 



TH£ WORD GEHENNA. 107 

submit the result of my investigation for candid consid- 
eration. It is with reluctance I dissent from such a 
learned and sensible writer as Dr. Campbell. But he 
has taught me to call no man master. He encourages 
free inquiry, and inculcates on his readers, th^t no doc- 
trine ought to be believed because it is asserted by the 
learned, and professed by the multitude; but on the 
evidence whereby it is supported. As this quotation 
contains, for substance, the views of all who believe 
Gehenna to signify the place of eternal punishment, it 
is necessary to msi^e some remarks on it in the outset. 
With all due respect for the memory of Dr. Campbell, 
I solicit attention to the following remarks on the above 
quotation. 

1st, Let it be observed, how differently he speaks in the 
first and last part of it. In the first he says, — ^^ that Ge- 
henna is employed in the New Testament to denote the 
place of future punishment, prepared for the devil and 
his angels, is indisputable,^^ But in the last, he only 
says, — "this is the sense, i/* I mistake noty in which 
Gehenna, a synonymous term, is always to be under- 
stood in the New Testament." Whether, what he had 
written between the first and last of these sentences, 
led him to hesitate about the meaning of Gehenna, I 
cannot say ; but sure I am, that he was too shrewd a 
man not to perceive, and too candid not to own, the 
iosufliciency of the evidence adduced to convince his 
readers. It is not his usual mode to assert things. He 
generally states evidence, and seldom fails to convince 
us. But here he affords us none. In attempting to 
make out the proof of what he asserts, I have been led 
to alter my opbion about the meaning of Gehenna. 

2d, Though Dr. Campbell asserts in the above quo- 
tation, that this is always the sense of Gehenna in the 
New Testament, yet he denies that it has any support 
from the Old. He says, — " In the old Testament we 
do not find this place in the same manner mentioned. 



108 AN INQUIRY INTO 

Accordingly the word Gehenna does not occur in the 
Septuagint.* It is not a Greek word, and consequent- 
ly not to be found in the Grecian classics.". To me 
this is very strange. What ! ure we to believe withaut 
evidence, that the word Geherma is taken from the Old 
TestameiU, and the sense of endless misery affixed to it 
by the New Testament writers, yet no intimation given 
of such a change 1 This we think ought to be indis- 
putably proved, before it be believed by any man, Ufl- 
less they explained the word in this new sense, it was 
impossible, in the very nature of the case, that their 
hearers could understand them. 

3d, But Dr. Campbell attempts to account for such 
a change in the meaning of Gehenna in the New Testa- 
ment, from that of the Old, in the following manner. 
" As this place was, in process of time, considered as 
tm emblem of heli, or the place of torment reserved for 
the punishment of the wicked in a future state, the name 
tophet came gradually to be used in this sense, and ttt 
length to be confined to it." I am surprised at this 
statement, from such a writer as Dr. Campbell. Let it 
be noticed, he does not say that the New Testament 
writers explained Gehenna to theur hearers in this new 
sense. Nor does he say, that any sacred writer either 
of the Old or New Testament, made tophet an emblem 
of this place of torment. How then, could tophet be- 
come an emblem of hell, the place of torment, until 
this place was first known by the persons who made it 
an emblem ? But here is one place made the emblem 
of another, and yet it is confessed that no revelation was 
given about this place, of which the other place is made 
the emblem. Yea, it is even declared, that for this 
very place, the Hebrew, Greek, nor English lan- 
guage has no name. Is it asked how I make this ap- 
pear ? I answer. Dr. Campbell told us above that nci- 

*Th^ word GelMima does occur in the septuagint, as we may probably 
show afterwards. 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 109 

tber Sheol, Hades, nor Tartarus, means this place of tor- 
ment. In the very quotation on which we are remaric- 
ing, be declares that Gehenna does not occur in this sense 
in the Old Testament, that it is not a Greek word, and 
is not found in the Grecian classics, nor in the Septua- 
gint. He also told us, that our English word hell, did 
not originally signify the place of eternal punishment for 
the wicked, but expressed the sBmeplace as Sheol and 
Hades. Here then we have got a place, a place of eter^ 
nal punishment for the wicked, but for which the Bible, 
in the original languages, has no name ; a place, for 
which even the copious Grecian classics afford no name ; 
a place, for which our Lord and his apostles could find 
no name, but were obliged to borrow a word fi^m the 
Old Testament, affix this new sense to it, and did this 
without any explanation, or even intimation, to their 
hearers. They did this too, in addressing Jews who 
had the Old Testament in their hands ; persons who 
were opposed to the doctrines they taught, and who 
were jealous of innovotion. Moreover, the change of 
sense put on this word taken firom their Scriptures, is 
for the purpose of threatening them with endless torment 
ia a future state. And to add no more, such persons re- 
ceive all this without a murmuring word at the alteration, 
or the dreadful punishment with which they are threat- 
ened. All this may be true, but we must say, it is not 
very probable, nor ought it to be received until very 
conclusive evidence is produced. But it may be ask- 
ed, fixmn what source did Dr. Campbell learn, " that 
tophet or Gehenna came gradually to be used as an em- 
Hem of hell, and at length came to be confined to it ?" 
From what he has said, it was not fix)m the Old Testa- 
ment. If it was used as an emblem of hell, and confin- 
ed to it in the days of our Lord, it must have assumed 
this new sense, between the completion of the Old Tes- 
tament writings, and the commencement of the gospel 
dispensation. If it began to assume this new sense be- 

10 



110 AN INQUIRY INTO 

fore the Old Testament was cO^ipleted, it had' no au- 
thority from it ; for he declares, that Gehenna does not 
occur in this manner in the Old Testament. This new 
sense, then affixed to the word Gehenna, is not of di- 
vine but of human origin : it rests on the authority of man, 
and not on the authority of God. I think this cannot be 
denied, unless it is proved, that our Lord informed those 
to whom he spake, that this was the sense in which it 
was now to be understood. But is any thing like this 
to be found in the New Testament? And is not this 
taking for granted the very thing which ought to be 
proved? ^ ^ 

But further ; it must be allowed, that the way Dr. 
Campbell says Gehenna came to assume this new sense, 
is extremely suspicious. Had it been of divine author- 
ity, it would not have come gradually to assume it. 
Wo ; the sense would have been settled at once. But 
this new sense affixed to the word, was of slow process. 
It came, he says, ^'gradually to be used as an emblem 
of hell, and at last to be confined to it,'^ At what 
time it began to be used in this new sense, who had the 
honor of first using it, how long before it came to be 
confined to it, and who completed it, we are not inform- 
ed. The thmg is barely asserted by Dr. Campbell. 
If any evidence of this is to be found, we must find it, 
if we can ourselves. We have been at some pains to 
find evidence of this, but our labors have been entire- 
ly firuitless. We are left in the dark, as to when, or by 
whom, or on what authority such a meaning was first 
given to Gehenna. ^ But it may be said, is it not evi- 
dent that our Lord used Gehenna always, and indispur 
tably in this new sense ? It is certain, it is indisputable, 
that Dr. Campbell has asserted this, without so much 
as attempting to prove it. But surely this ought not 
to be received on the assertions of any man. Only let 
it be proved that our Lord used Gehenna in this pew 
^tense, and I am forever silent on the subject. 



THE WORD GEHENNA. Ill 

But Dr. Campbell b&s said, "in the Old Testament 
we do not find this place in the same manner mention- 
ed." May I then be allowed to ask, if this place of 
tonnent for the wicked, is not mentioned in the Old 
Testament, under the name Gehenna^ by what other 
name is it called ? He denies that it is called by the 
names Sheol, Hades, or Tartarus. Yea, he denies 
that the Hebrew, Greek, or English language affords 
a name for this place of torment. In his Dissertation, 
already quoted, he thus writes in regard to the state' 
of the dead. " It is pkin that in the Old Testament 
the most profound silence is observed in regard- to the 
state of the deceased, their joys or sorrows, happiness 
<MP misery. It is represented to us rather by negative 
qualities than by positive ; by its silence, its darkness, 
its being inaccessible, unless by preternatural means, to 
the living, and their ignorance about it. Thus much in 
general seems always to have been presumed cencem- 
ing it ; that it is not a state of activity adapted for ex- 
ertion, or indeed for the accomplishment of any impor- 
tant purpose, good or bad. In most respects, however, 
there was a resemblance in their notions on this subject, 
to those of the most ancient heathen." It is obvious 
from this, that he did not believe, the idea of a place 
of torment, or the name for it, was known under the 
Old Testament. Besides, we have seen in a quotation 
of his, above, that the Jews, from their intercourse 
with the heathen, learned the notion of punishment in 
a future state. He not only denies, that the Jews had 
any knowledge of this from the Old Testament, but he 
informs us of the source whence they derived their in- 
formation. Either he must be greatly mistaken in his 
statements, or endless punishment in hell is a heathen 
notion, and ought to be rejected by all Christians. But 
I have to ask further, did our Lord speak to the Jews 
about Gehenna,in a sense it had not in their sacred books, 
but in that given it by mere human authority ? Did he 



112 AN INQUIRY INTO 

use a Scripture word, in a sense which man's wisdom 
teacheth ? Are we to believe, that he who said to the 
Jews", "fill! well ye reject the commandment of the 
Lord, that ye may keep your own traditions," thus gave 
them countenance by his example ? Admitting, for ar- 
gument's sake, that Gehenna was made the emblem 6f 
a place of endless torment, I ask, by what name was 
it called before this new sense was affixed to the word 
Gehenna? Dr. Campbell says, that Gehenna came 
gradually to mean this place and at last came to be 
confined to it. Before this term was then used to ex* 
press a place of endless misery, was such a place known, 
and what word or phrase did men use to designate it? 
Or was it a nameless place, before Gehenna was used 
as an emblem of it ? If so, how could they speak 
about it ? But it seems men came gradually, in pro- 
cess of time, to use Gehenna as an emblem of this 
place of torment, before they had any revelation about 
it. We thought places and things were first known, 
and then names for them followed ; but here the matter 
seems to have been very different. In fact, there is 
something here which will not b^ar examination. I ask 
again, why were not men content to speak of it by the 
name God had given it, if indeed he had said any thing 
about it ? Or did mep first invent this place of torment, 
and then make Gehenna an emblem of it? Unless it 
is proved, that our Lord did use Gehenna in this new 
sense, will it not follow that such a place of torment is 
not mentioned in the Bible by the name Sheol, Hadesy 
Tartarus^ or Gehenna 1 If it is proved, that he used 
Gehenna in this sense, does it not follow, that he adopt- 
ed a heathen notion, and has made it a principal arti- 
cle of belief to all his followers. It may just be added, 
how could Dr. Campbell with truth say, that tophet 
came gradually to be used as an emblem pf hell, the 
place of future torment, *^and at length to be confined 
to it ?" It could not be confined to it by the Jews in 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 113 

reading the Old Testament Scriptures. Let any one 
consult the places where it occurs, and see if it could 
be so understood by them. If they did, it was a great 
misunderstanding of the passages ; for Dr. Campbell 
himself declares, that in this sense it does not occur in 
the Old Testament. 

4th, Dr. Campbell declares in the above quotation, 
that Gehenna does not occur in the Old Testament in 
the sense of a place of torment for the wicked, yet he 
gives us the following information about it. — He says 
— ^^^it is originally a compound of the two Hebrew 
words, ge hinnom, the valley of Hinnom, a place near 
Jerusalem, of which we hear first in the book of Joshua 
XV. 8. It was there that the cruel sacrifices of children 
were made by fire to Moloch, the Ammonitish idol, 
2 Chron. xxiii. 10. and that, as it is supposed, from the 
ooise of drums, toph signifying a drum, a noise raised 
cm purpose to drown the cries of the helpless infants." 
— Here, then, is the origin of Gehenna in the New 
Testament, stated by Dr. Campbell himself. We see, 
though it does not occur in the sense of a place of 
torment for the wicked, yet it does occur in the Old 
Testament in some sense. What this sense is, and what 
it is there made an emblem of by divine authority, ought 
to be carefully considered, and not departed from, unless 
very substantial reasons are assigned. We do not think 
it at all probable, that our Lord would use Gehenna in 
such a different sense, or make it an emblem of such a 
very different thing from that of the' Old Testament 
writers, if Dr. Campbell himself may be believed in the 
following quotations. In his fifth Dissertation, part ii. 
sect. 13. he says, — •* Our Lord, we find from the evan- 
gelists, spoke to his countrymen hi the dialect of their 
own Scriptures, and used those names to which the 
reading of the law and the prophets, either in the orig- 
inal, or in the versions then used, had familiarized them. 
Our translators, and indeed most European translators, 

10* 



114 AN INQUIRY im^ 

represent him as using words^ which, even in their a% 
translations of the Old Testament, never occur, and 
which, m fact, there is nothing there that corresponds 
meaning." In his first preliminary Dissertation, part 
sect. 1. and 2. he further says, — "if the words a 
phrases employed by the apostles and evangelists, 
delivering the revelation committed to them by the He 
Spirit, had not been agreeable to the received usa 
of the people to whom they spoke, their discourse 
being unintelligible, could have conveyed no infom 
tion, and consequently would have been no revelati 
to the hearers. Our Lord and his apostles, in publLf 
ing the gospel, first addressed themselves to their cot 
trymen the Jews ; a people who had, many ages befo: 
at different periods, been favored with other reve 
tions. As the writings of the Old Testament are oi 
much earlier date, and contain an account of the r 
and first establishment, together with a portion of t 
history of the nation to whom the gospel was first pi 
mulgated, and of whom were all its mrst missionaries a 
teachers, it is thence unmiestionably that we must lea\ 
both what the prindpat facts , customs, doctrines, a 
precepts are, that are alluded to in the apostoli 
vnitings, and what is the proper signification and < 
tent of the eocpressions usedJ^ 

In this quotation, it is freely admitted — " Our Lc 
' spoke to his countrymen in the dialect of their o^ 
scriptures, and used those names to which the readi 
of the law and the prophets, either in the original, 
in the versions then used, had familiarized them." E 
it is universally confessed, that Gehenna, does not s 
nify a place of endless punishment in the Old Tes 
ment, either in the original, or versions used in 1 
days of Christ. To say then, that our Lord used C 
henna in such a sense, is to " represent him, as usi 
words in a sense, which does not occur in the Old Ti 
tament, and to which, in fact, there is nothing there d 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 115 

corresponds in meaning/' This, Dr. Campbell con- 
demns, and declares, that it is to the writings of the Old 
Testament we must go, to learn — " the proper signifi- 
cation, and extent of the expressions used in the newJ^ 
Let us then have recourse to the Old Testament, to 
learn the ^^ signification and eoctenf^ of Gehenna in the 
New? 

What then is the meaning of Gehenna in the Old 
Testament ? In what sense or senses is it used there ? 
I answer in the two following, It is used, 

1st, Literally. Dr. Campbell above, allows, Gehenna 
in the New Testament — ^^ is originally a compound of 
the two Hebrew words ge hinnom, the valley of Hin- 
Dom, a place near Jerusalem, of which we hear first in 
the book of Joshua xv. 8." The word^e, or gia^ sig- 
nifies a valley, and enm, or Hinnom, the name of its 
owner. The following are the places where it thus oc- 
curs, which the reader may consult. Josh. xv. 8 ; xviii. 
16. Neh. xi. 30. 2 Chron. xxviii. 3, and xxiii. 6. 
Jer. xxxii. 35. The reader who consults these texts, 
will see, that kings and princes, Priests and people, 
burnt their children to Moloch, and practised the most 
horrid abominations in the valley of Hinnom, The 
following texts may also be consulted, which refer to 
the same scenes of wickedness, 1 Kings ii. 4 — 8. Ezek. 
xvi. 20, 21. xxiii. 37—39 ; xx. 26—^1. Amos v. 26. 
Acts vii. 43. It^appears from the following texts, that 
it was death by the law of Moses, for any man to sacri- 
fice his children to Moloch, Levit. xviii. 21. Comp. 
XX. 1—6. 

In this valley of Hinnom was Tophet, concerning 
which Calmet thus writes. " It is thought Tophet was 
Ae butchery, or place of slaughter at Jerusalem, lying 
south of the city, in the valley of the children of Hin- 
nom. It is also said, that a constant fire was kept here, 
for burning the carcasses, and other filth, brought hither 
fiom the city. Into the same place they cast the ashes 



116 AN INQUIRY INTO 

and remains of the images of false gods, when they de- 
molished their altars, and statues. Isai. xxx. 33, seems 
to allude to this custom, of burning dead carcasses in to- 
phet. When speaking of the defeat of the army of 
Sennacherib, he says ; ^ for topjiet is ordained of old ; 
yea, for the king it is prepared ; he hath made it d^ep 
and large ; the pile thereof is fire, and much wood ; the 
breath of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone doth kin- 
dle it.'* — Others think, the name of tophet is given to 
the valley of Hinnom, because of the sacrifices offered 
there to the god Moloch, by beat of drum, to drown 
the cries of the consuming children." — The idol god 
Moloch was worshipped in the valley of Hinnom. On 
the word Moloch, Calmet says : — " The rabbins assure 
us, that the idol Moloch was of brass, sitting on a throne 
of the same metal, adorned with a royal crown, having 
the head of a calf, and his arms extended as if to em- 
brace any one. When they would offer any children 
to him, they heated the statue within by a great fire ; 
and when it was burning hot, they put the miserable 
victim within his arms, where it was soon consumed by 
the violence of the beat ; and, that the cries of the chil- 
dren might not be heard, they made a great noise with 
drums, and other instruments, about the idol. Others 
say, that his arms were extended, and reaching toward 
the ground ; so that when they put a child within his 
arms, it immediately fell into a great fire which was 
burning at the foot of the statue. Others relate that it 
was hollow, and had internally seven partitions, the first 
of which was appointed for meal or flour ; in the sec- 
ond there were turtles, in the third an ewe, in the fourth 
a ram, in the fifth a calf, in- the sixth an ox, and in the 

* Parkhurat renders this text tbus— -'< far the furnace ia already set in 
order : for the kine (of Assyria namely), it is prepared" etc. But ivas 
heU prepared for wis king f and if it refers to hell in another world— 
" the pile thereof is fire and much wood." We have heard this text quoted, 
to prove a hell in another ii^orld. 



THE WORD 6£H£NNA. 117 

seventh a child. All these were burned together, by 
heating the statue on the inside." 

In 2 Ejngs xxiii. 10, we are told, that at the time 
of Josiah's reformation, " he defiled tophet which is in 
the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might 
make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to 
Moloch." Concerning this ProJi. Stuart says, p. 141 — 
*^ after these sacrifices had ceased, the place was desecra- 
ted, and made one of loathing and horror. The pious 
king Josiah caused it to be polluted, 2 Kings xxiii. 10, 
i. e. he caused to be carried there the filth of the city 
of Jerusalem. It would seem that the custom of dese- 

# 

crating this place, thus happily begun, was continued in 
after ages down to the period when our Savior was on 
earth. Perpetual fires ^^ kept up, in order to con- '^\ 
sume the offid which was deposited there, and as the 
same offal would breed worms, (for so all putrefymg 
meat of course does, hence came the expression, " where 
the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Such 
is the origin of the phraseology, in Mark ix. 42 — 47, by 
Mr. Stuart's own showing, winch will be considered be- 
low. " The worm that dieth not, and the fire that is 
not quenched" was not in a future state, but in the val- 
ley of Hinnom. But I find gia enm^ or the valley of 
Hinnomy used in the Old Testament. 

2d, Symbolically. By comparing the texts referred 
to above, with their contexts, it will be seen, that on ac- 
count of the crimes committed in the valley of Hinnom, 
God threatened to, bring on the Jewish nation severe 
punishment, as the valley of Hinnom, or tophet, was 
the place where their horrid abominations had been com- 
mitted, so it'is used as a symbol or figure^ to describe 
their punishment. This is done by Jeremiah chap. xix. 
and chap, vii, to the end, which I shall now quote. 

^^ Thus saith the Lord, go and get a potter's earthen 
bottle, and take of the ancients of the people, and of the 
ancients of the priests ; and go forth unto the valley of 



118 AN INi^UlRY INTO 

the son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the east 
gate, and proclaim there the words that I shall tell thee ; 
and say, Hear ye the word of the Lord, O kings of Ju- 
dah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem ; thus saith the Lord 
of hosts ; the God qf Israel : Behold, I will bring evil 
upon this place, the which, whosoever heareth, his ears 
shall tingle. Because they have forsaken me, and have 
estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto 
other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have 
known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this 
place with the blood of innocents ; they have built al- 
so the high places of Baal, to bum their sons with fire 
for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, 
nor spake iV, neither came it into my mind ; therefore, 
behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that this place 
shall no more be called tophet, nor the valley of the 
son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter. And I will 
make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this 
place ; and I will cause them to fall by the sword be- 
fore their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek 
their Uves ; and their carcasses will I give to be meat for 
the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth. 
And I will make this city desolate, and an hissjng ; eve- 
ry one that passeth thereby shall be astonished, and 
hiss because of all the plagues thereof. And I will 
cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh 
of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the 
flesh of his firiend in the seige and straightness, where- 
with their enemies, and they that sep k their lives, shall 
straiteA them. Then shalt thou break the bottle in the 
sight of the men that go with thee, and shalt say unto 
them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts; Even so will I 
break this people and this city, as ont breaketh a pot- 
ter's vessel, that cannot be made whole again : and they 
shall bury thtm in tophet, till ihtrt be no place to bury. 
Thus will I do unto this place, saith the Lord, and to 
the inhabitants thereof, and even make this city as to-* 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 119 

phet : and the houses of Jerusalem, and the houses of 
the kings of Judah, shall be defiled as the place of to- 
phet, because of all the houses upon whose roofs they 
have burned incense unto all the host of heaven, and 
have poured out drink offerings unto other gods. Then 
came Jeremiah from tophet, whither the Lord had sent 
him to prophesy ; and he stood in the court of the 
Lord's house ; and said to all the people, thus saith the 
Lord of hosts, the God of Israel ; Behold, I will bring 
upon this city and upon all her towns all the evil that I 
have pronounced against it, because they have harden- 
ed their necks, that they might not hear my words." 
Chap. vii. ver. 29 — 34. — "Cut off thine hair, OJeru- 
.s€dem, and cast it away, and take up a lamentation on 
high places ; for the Lord hath rejected and forsaken 
the generation of his wrath. For the children of Ju- 
dah have done evil in my sight, saith the Lord : they 
have set their abominations in the house which is called 
by my name, to pollute it. And they have built the 
high places of tophet, which is in the valley of the son 
of Hmnom, to bum their sons and their daughters in 
the fire ; which I commanded them not, neither came it 
into my heart. Therefore, behold, the days come, saith 
the Lord, that it shall no more be called tophet, nor the 
valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaugh- 
ter ; for they shall bury in tophet till there be no place. 
And the carcasses of this people shall be meat for the 
fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth ; 
and none shall fray them away. Then will I cause to 
cease firom the cities of Judah, and fi*om the streets of 
Jerusalem, the voice of mirth, and the voice of glad- 
ness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the 
bride : for the land shall be desolate." 

No one can doubt, after reading these two quotations, 
that the Old Testament writers made the valley of Hin- 
nom or tophet, an emblem of punishment ^ and of future 
pmdshmenty but not of future eternal punishment. It 



120 AN INQUIRY INTO 

is equally evident, that they made it an emblem of fu- 
ture temporal punishment to the Jews as a nation. Not 
a word is dropped, that this punishment was to be in a 
future state of existence. No ; it is a prediction of mis- 
eries to be endured by the Jews, for their sins. It is 
not mentioned as a punishment for wicked men general- 
ly, or for Jews and Gentiles indiscriminately. No ; the 
Jews, as a nation, were to suffer this punishment. In 
this prediction they are reminded of the crimes they had 
ccMnmitted against the Lord, in the valley of HinncxD, 
and it is used as an emblem of the punishment he was 
to inflict upon them. This is very apparent from the 
following verses in the above quoted passages, Jer. chap, 
vii. 20, 21, and xix. 4, 5. No man, we think, can read 
these predictions of the prophet, without recognizing, 
that our Lord in the following texts, referred to the 
same punishment. ^^ That upon you may come all the 
righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of 
righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Bar- 
achias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not 
since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor 
ever shall be. And except these days should be short- 
ened, there should no flesh be saved. For these be the 
days of vengeance, that all things which are written may 
be fulfilled," Matth. xxiii. 35, and xxiv. 21, 22. Luk^ 
xxi. 22. Yes, the days referred to, were indeed- the 
days of Tengeance, and the things which God had long 
predicted, were fulfilled, and the above quoted predic- 
tions of Jeremiah, were surely of the number. But, 
that we may see more particularly, what Jeremiah made 
Gehenna or tophet an emblem of, it is necessary to point 
this out by going over the above predictions. 

1st, The prophet predicts, that the valley of Hin- 
ncMB, should be to the Jews the valley of slaughter, and 
that they should bury in tophet till there should be no 
place to bury. In proof of its exact fidfihnent, I quote 



^ 



T£[E WORD GEHENNA. 131 

the following from Macknight on Math. chap. xxiv. 
He says: — "besides, in the progress of the siege, the 
number of the dead, and the stench arising from their 
unburied carcasses, must have infected the air, and occa- 
sioned pestilence. For Josephus tells us that there 
were no less than six hundred thousand dead bodies 
carried out of the city, and suffered to lie unburied." 
It should be recollected, that the valley of Hinnom was 
m the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. — We see then 
this part of Jeremiah's prediction literally and minutely 
falfilled. 

2d, Jeremiah further predicts, " that their carcasses 
also should be meat for the fowls of heaven and for the 
beasts of the earth." If the fowls of the air, and 
beasts of the field, did not feed on their carcasses, it was 
not for want of opportunity, for six hundred thousand of 
their carcasses lay unburied. This part of the predic- 
tion was also literally fulfilled. 

3d, Jeremiah also predicts, that " in the straitness of 
the siege, they should eat the flesh of their children." 
This was also fulfilled iii the siege of Jerusalem, as Jo- 
sephus, their historian, testifies. 

4th, He further predicts, that " their land should be 
desolate." This it soon became after the destruction 
of the city and temple, and in this state, in a great 
measure^ it remains until this day. 

5th, Again, the prophet predicts, " that their city 
should \>e as tophet." We have seen, that he said be- 
fore, " the valley of Hinnom should be to them the 
valley of slaughter, and that they shoul4 bury in tophet 
till there should be no place to bury." It is evident, 
from the prophet's prediction, that the city of Jeru- 
salem should be as tophet or like unto tophet. Tophet, 
is used as an emblem, to describe the misery in which it 
was to be involved by the judgments of God. And 
why, it may be asked, was tophet made an emblem of 
Ame temporal miseries, rather than any thing else ? 

11 



_122 A;N Ili^UIRT INTO 

To this I answer, that no temporal miseries since the 
world began, or ever shall be, could equal them in 
severity, and no place known to a Jew, could be more 
fitly chosen by the prophet, as an emblem to represent 
them. 

6th, The prophet adds, that " all the evil which the 
Lord had spoken he would bring upon them." The 
following words of the apostle,.! Thess. ii. 16, suffi- 
ciently explain this, — " for the wrath is come, or com- 
ing upon them to the uttermost." — And the wcwrds of 
our Lord, quoted above, — "for these be the days of 
vengeance, that all things that are written may be ful- 
filled." Luke xxi. 22. This part of the prediction, 
compared with these passages, show, that the prophet 
did refer to the dreadful punishment which God brought 
upon the Jewish nation at the end of the world, or age, 
and described, Matth. xxiv. For "all the evil which 
the Lord had spoken," he did not bring upon them, 
until the destruction of their city and temple by the 
Roman army. 

Such are the principal things contained in this proph- 
esy of Jei-emiah. It is then put beyond all fair debate, 
that Grehenna was made an emblem of punishment to 
the Jews; and nothing but ignorance of their own 
Scriptures, could prevent their fiiUy knowing this. It 
was made an emblem of temporal punishment^ and a 
very striking emblem indeed. But that it was made 
an emblem of eternal punishment to the Jews, or any 
of the human race^ does not appear from this prophesy 
of Jeremiah, or any other part of the Bible. We hope 
these things will be kept in view, as they have a very 
important bearing on the passages about Gehenna in the 
New Testament. Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom, or 
tophet, is made by Jeremiah an emblem of the tempo- 
ral calamities coming on the Jewish nation. That in 
this very way, it is used in the New Testament, we 
shall show when we come to consider the passages 



THE WORD GE^£NNA. 123 

where it occurs. Dr. Campbell, is so far correct then 
in saying, that Gehenna was made an emblem of pun- 
ishmenty but is certainly mistaken in saying, that it 
was made an emblem of future eternal punishment for 
the devil and his angels, or any other beings in the uni- 
verse. Supposing, Gehenna to have been made an em- 
blem of the place of eternal torment to the wicked, it 
is certain, it was not done by the Old Testament writ" 
ers. Dr. Campbell assures us, that in this manner it 
does not occur in the Old Testament. That he is cor- 
rect in this, is plain from the places in which it occurs. 
Is it not then deserving particular notice, that the Old 
Testament writers should use the term Gehenna, as an 
emblem of temporal and not of eternal punishment ; and 
yet we are told, that in process of time it came to be 
used as an emblem of eternal punishment ; but no man 
can tell us on whose authority this was done ? 



SECTION II. 



FACTS STATED RESPECTING GEHENNA, THAT IT DOES 
NOT EXPRESS A PLACE OF ENDLESS PUNISHMENT IN 
THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Before we consider the texts, where Gehenna occurs 
in the New Testament, it is of importance to notice the 
following facts. They have been altogether overlook- 
ed, or but Uttle attended to in discussions on this sub- 
ject. 

1st, T%e term Gehenna, is not used in the Old Tes- 
tament, to designate a place of endless punishment to 
the wickedi This fact is so palpable, that Dr. Camp- 
bell, declares positively, Gehenna has no such meaning 
there. All admit this fact ; which ought to lead all, to 



124 AN INQUIRY INTO 

examine carefully, if Gehenna in the New Testament, 
can mean a place of endless misery. We ought not to 
take this for granted; but be sure we correctly under- 
stand the passages which speak of 'Geheima. This has 
been too long believed without any examination. The 
admitted fact, that Gehenna has no such sense in the 
Old Testament, ought to create the suspicion, that the 
sense of Gehenna is misunderstood in the New. 

2d, It is also afacty that those who believe Gehenna, 
designates a place of endless punishment in the New 
Testament^ entirely overlooked its meaning in the Old, 
All admit, its literal original signification to be^ the valley 
of Hinnom, But not one of them takes the least notice, 
mat Gehenna was used also by Jeremiah, as a source of 
imagery, or emblem, to describe the punishment God 
threatened to the Jewish nation. But why overlook 
this sense of Gehenna in the Old Testament ? Is it 
not possible, yea, is it not probable, that this may be its 
sense in the New ? All critics admit, the language of 
the New Testament is derived from the old, and ought 
to be interpreted by it. 

3d, The fact is also notorious, that those who believe 
Gehenna in the New Testament, designates a place of 
endless punishment, give it this sense on mere human 
authority. Dr. Campbell above, says, Gehenna came 
gradually to assume this sense, and at last ca^ie to be 
confined to it. But no divine authority is referred to, 
for the origin of this sense attached to the term Ge- 
henna. Professor Stuart, refers to the later Jews, the 
Rabbinical writers, as authority. And finally tells us 
— " Gehenna came to be used as a designation of the 
infernal regions, because the Hebrews supposed that 
demons dwelt ^in this valley." But who can believe, 
the term Gehenna in the New Testament, is used m, a 
sense which originated in a silly superstitioi^t notion ? 

»4th, Another fact is, the word Gehenna only occtwt 
twelve times in the N^w Testament, The foUowmg are 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 125 

all the texts, Math. v. 22, 29, 30, and xviii. 9. Mark 
ix. 43—47. Lukexii. 5. Math. x. 28, and xxiii. 15, 
33. James iii. 6. The rendering of Gehenna in these 
texts, is uniformly hell in the common version. The 
fact, that Gehenna, is only used twelve times, in the 
New Testament deserves notice, for Dr. Campbell and 
others say, this is the only word in the Bible, which 
designates a place of endless punishment. Now, sup- 
posing this to be true, do most Christians know, that 
their place of endless punishment, is only mentioned 
twelve times there ? But correctly speaking, Gehenna 
was not used even twelve times originally. It occurs 
eleven times in the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, and 
Luke, which all know, are only three histories of the 
same discourses in which Gehenna was used by our 
Lord. Viewing the subject in this light, few words of 
such importance, occur so seldom in the New Testa- 
ment as the word Gehenna. I notice this, to show the 
difference, between our Lord and modem preachers as 
to the frequency of their use of the word hell, which is 
the rendering of Gehenna. Allowing it used twelve 
times in the New Testament, this is not so often, as 
many preachers use it in the course of a single sermon. 
That they never ought to use the texts, in which Ge- 
henna occurs, in proof of a place of endless punishment, 
we shall show afterwards. 

5th, The fact is also indisputable, that the word 
Gehenna is used by our Lord, and by James, but by 
no other person in the New Testament. Any person 
who can read English, may satisfy himself of the cor- 
rectness of this fact, by reading the texts referred to 
above. John, wrote the history of our Lord, as well as 
Mathew, Mark, and Luke, but he never speaks of Ge- 
henna, either in his Gospel or Epistles. What is more 
remarkable, Luke, though he uses Gehenna once in his 
Gospel, never uses it in the Acts, which contains the 
hist^ of the Apostles' preaching for thirty years. 

11* 



126 AN INi^UIBT INTO 

Paul, Peter, and Jude, are entirely silent about Gehen- 
na, which is very strange, if it designated a place of 
enf]less punishment to the wicked. The writings of 
those persons, who have never mentioned Gehenna, 
form two thirds of the New Testament, ' But surely, 
it is a very natural expectation, warranted by the fre- 

auency of other important subjects mentioned, that all 
ae writers in the New Testament should often speak 
of Gehenna, if it did mean a place of endless misery. 
And if they did believe this, yet were silent about it, 
they were not so faithful to their hearers as most mod* 
exn preachers. But can any man believe, our Lord's 
disciples understood him to mean by Gehenna a place 
oi endless misery, yet most of them never said a word 
about it in their preaching, or in their letters to the 
churches ? Is it at all propable, that they would lay 
aside the term Gehenna, used by their Lord to desig- 
nate a place of endless misery, and adopt some other 
language to express it ? We strongly doubt this. 

6th, But another striking fact is, all that is said 
about Gehenna in the New Testament^ was spoken to 
Jewsj and to Jews only. No Gentile, is ever threat- 
ened with Gehenna punishment. This fact is indispu- 
table, which every person can satisfy himself about, by 
lomply reading the texts where Gehenna is used, with 
their respective contexts. It is of no consequence to 
decide, to whom the Gospels were originally addressed, 
iot in the eleven places where our Lord used the term 
Gehenna, it is certain he was speaking to Jews. And 
iii the only other place where Gehenna occurs, it is 
certain, James wrote to the twelve tribes which were 
scattered abroad. James i. 1, Comp. Chap, iii 6. It 
forms no objection to this fact — " That our Lord's min- 
istry was among the Jews, and not among the Genti]:es, 
hence could not say to the Gentiles as to the Jews 
"^^ how can ye escape the damnation of hell, (G«b«a- 
ii9tV "^^ Apostles' ministry was among the Genlilesj 



TUm l^OKD GEHENNA. 127 

but they never say any thing to them about Gehenna in 
any shape whatever, which shows, that "the danrna* 
tion of Gehenna," only concerned the Jews. This fact, 
is of great importance in the present investigation, and 
is beyond all dispute. Let us then attach what sense 
we please to the term Gehenna, it is certain, Jewg are 
the only persons addressed about it, or concerned in its 
punishment. As proof of this, it may be observed that 
Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are thought to have written 
their Gospels for the use of the Jews, and in them Ge- 
henna is used. It seems certain, John wrote his Gospel 
for the use of the Gentiles, for he explains Jewish places, 
names, and customs, altogether unnecessary, had he 
wrote it to Jews. But it deserves special notice, John 
never mentions Qehenna, and omits all the discourses^ 
of our Lord, in which he spoke of Gehenna. If the 
damnation of Gehenna, or hell, only concerned Jews, 
we see a good reason for such an omission ; but if it 
equally concerned the Gentiles, how shall any man ac- 
count for the omission, on rational and scriptural princi- 
ples. If Jews and Gentiles, were alike concerned in 
the punishment of Gehenna, why were not both alike 
admcMiished concerning it ? How, I ask, could the Gen- 
tiles avoid the punishment of Gehenna, seeing no sacred 
writer said any thing to them about it ? Does not this 
very omission prove, that the New Testament writers, 
did not mean by Gehenna a place of endless misery, 
but that it designated the temporal punishment which 
Jeremiah predicted to the Jewish nation. 

To the above, it may possibly be objected — " were 
not all the scriptures written for the benefit of mankind ? 
Why then make this distinction between Jews and Gen- 
tiles?" Answer. Whatsoever was written aforetime' 
was written for our instruction. But notwithstanding 
this, who does not make this very distmction ? As Gen- 
tiles, we may derive much instruction firom Math. Chaps. 
83d and S4th, but who does not allow, these two Chap* 



128 AN INi^UIRY INTO 

ters had a particular reference to the Jews ? In the 
first, some of the most important things occur, which 
our Lord eyer delivered respecting Gehenna. Who 
does not allow the words, — " Fill ye up then the meas- 
ure of your Fathers," had a special reference to the 
Jews as a nation ? , But why not also the very next 
words — " ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can 
ye escape the damnation of hell." And as this is the 
only instance, where our Lord ever threatened the un- 
believing Jews with the " damnation of Gehenna,'^ arid 
no sacred writer ever threatened the Gentiles with it, 
who can doubt this punishment only respected Jews ? 
'I then appeal to every candid man, whether this fact, 
ought not to lead us all to suspect, that our Lord by 
Gehenna, meant the temporal punishment coming on 
the Jewish nation, and not a place of endless punish- 
ment for the wicked. The man who can avoid such a 
suspicion, must have some way of accounting, for this 
and other facts, of which I am ignorant. 

7th, Another important fact is, nearly all that our 
Lord said about Gehenna, was spoken to his own disci- 
ples. In the twelve places where Gehenna occurs, only 
m two instances, is a word said about it to the unbeliev- 
ing part of the Jewish nation. In nine of the other in- 
stances, our Lord was addressing his ovm disciples. 
They are the persons principally warned about the 

Sunishment of Qehenna. In the only other instance, 
ames was addressing believing Jews of the twelve 
tribes scattered abroad. The texts referred to above, 
need only to be read, which will satisfy the reader as 
to the correctness of these statements. I then ask, if 
our Lord by Gehenna, meant a place of endless misery, 
why was he so solicitous, that his few disciples should 
escape this punishment ; yet said so little concerning it 
to the unbelieving multitude ? How is this to be ra- 
tionally and scripturally accounted for? Besides, he 
dways spoke about Gehenna to his disciples as a thing 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 129 

they might escape ; but to the unbelieving Jews, he 
said — " how can ye escape the damnation of hell ?" 
Why warn those so often, who were in the least danger 
of Gehenna punishment, yet only threaten once those 
in the greatest danger of it, if the common opinions on 
the sul^ect are correct ? Our Lord's conduct, and the 
conduct of preachers in the present-day, are at perfect 
variance about this. What preacher now, shows more 
solicitude, that the few in his church, should be saved 
irom Gehenna or hell, than the multitude he considers 
living in disobedience ? The very reverse of this, is 
the conduct of modern preachers. Why, they act so 
different from our Lord, I must leave for others to ex- 
plain. I am satisfied, that this never can be rationally 
and scripturally accounted for, on the common opmions 
which are entertained respecting Gehenna punishment* 
I may add, either our Lord said a great deal too little 
about Gehenna, or hell to the wicked, or modem preach- 
ers say a great deal too much. Which of these is the 
truth, must be left for themselves to determine. This, 
with the other facts above, must create more than a 
doubt, that Gehenna in the New Testament does not 
mean a place of endless punishment. 

8th, Bui another fact, deserving some notice is, wher-- 
ever Gehenna is mentioned in the New Testament^ the 
persons addressed are supposed to be perfectly aC'*^ 
quainted with its meaning. No explanation is asked 
by the hearer, none is given by the speaker, nor is it 
supposed by either to be necessary. The Jews, were 
always the persons addressed about Gehenna. The 
first time our Lord addressed his disciples about it. Math. 
V. 22, they had no more occasion to ask him what he 
meant by Gehenna, than what he meant by the Judg- 
ment and council. And when he said to the unbelieving 
Jews — ^^ How can ye escape the damnation of Gehen- 
na," they understood him as well, what punishment he 
meant, as if he had spoken of stoning to d^«tth. If aU 



130 AN IN^triRT INTO 

this be true, and we think it is indisputable, the ques«> 
tion arises — ^id the Jews our Lord addressed, under- 
stand Gehenna to mean a place of endless misery ? As 
this is generally asserted, I have a right to ask, from 
what source of information, did they learn this sense of 
the word Gehenna ? I can think of no other sources, 
from which they «could possibly derive it, but some 
one or other of the following. 

1st, From immediate inspiration. But no evidence 
of this can be produced ; nor is it even alleged, by those 
who contend Gehenna in the New Testament means a 
place of endless punishment. No man will assert this^ 
who has considered the subject. 

2d, The Preaching of John the Baptist, But this 
cannot be alleged, for John never said a word about 
Gehenna in his preaching, if a correct account is given 
of it in the New Testament. 

3d, The instructions or explanations of the Savior, 
This, no man will aver, who has read the four Gospels, 
for our Lord never explained Gehenna to mean a place 
of endless punishment. 

4th, The Old Testament Scriptures. This the Jews, 
nor no other persons could do ; for all admit, Gehenna 
is not used in the Old Testament to designate a place 
of endless misery. Dr. Campbell above declared, that 
Gehenna in this sense, is not to be found in the Old 
Testament. 

5th, The assertions of fallible uninspired men. This 
is the source, from whence originated, the seuse now 
given to Gehenna — a place of endless misery to the 
wicked. Indeed, no higher authority is quoted than this ; 
no one contends that God first gave it such a sense. 
Dr. Campbell said above — " Gehenna in process of time 
came to be used in this sense, and at length came to be 
ccmfined to it." And Professor Stuart refers us to 
^Rabbinical writers as his authority, that Gehenna in the 
||LMiew Testament means a place of endless punishment.' 



THE WORD G£HENKA. 131 

In fact, he traces the origin of this sense given to Ge- 
henna, to the silly superstition among the Jews, who 
thou^t demons dwelt in the valley of Hinnom. Such 
is the way, the believers in endless hell torments say^ 
Gehenna came to have such a sense attached Jo it. We 
presume, no man can devise a better. 

But let us suppose, the Jews understood our Lord, 
by Gehenna to mean a place of endless punishment. 
How were they likely to relish such a threatening ? Not 
very well, for we shall see afterwards from Dr. Whitby, 
that the Jews believed, no Jew, however wicked, would^ 
go to hell. I ask then, how it was possible for our Lord" 
to say to the unbelieving Jews — " How can ye escape 
the damnation of hell, without exciting their wrath and 
indignation against him? But nothing is said in the 
four Gospels, that this threatening excited their indig- 
nation ; or that it was ever brought up as an accusation 
agsdnst him. 

There is no evidence, that the unbelieving Jews, un- 
derstood our Lord in one sense, and the disciples in 
another. No ; nor have we ever seen or heard, that 
this has been alleged by any one. How then did both 
understand him? I answer this question, by asking, 
how ought they to have understood him according to 
the meaning of Gehenna in their own scriptures ? Cer- 
tainly, either as meaning the literal valley of Hinnomy 
or symbolically, describing to them the punishment God 
had threatened their nation, as seen from Jeremiah 
above. In no other sense was Gehenna used in their 
Scriptures. In the last of these senses they must have 
understood him ; for when our L6rd spoke to them of 
Gehenna, it was the punishment of Gehenna, and that 
such a punishment had been threatened by Jeremiah, 
no Jew could be ignorant, who was acquainted with the 
Scriptures. If the Scriptures, were the common source 
of information, both to believing and unbelieving Jews, 
none of them could understand our Lord by Gehenna 



132 AN INQUIRY INTO 

punishment^ to mean endless punishment in a future 
state, for they^contained no such information. Those 
who contend, the Jews so understood our Lord, are 
bound to inform us how they came by this information, 
seeing it was not found in their Scriptures. Who taught 
them this doctrine? Was it from heaven or of men ? 
These are the questions at issue. To assume that Ge- 
henna means a place of endless punishment, will not 
sttitisfy candid enquirers after truth. And to refer them 
to Rabinieal authority for this sense of Gehenna, is- 
plainly admitting, it cannot be supported by a fair ap*- 
peal to the Bible. 

We have some additional facts to produce, to show, 
that Gehenna in the New Testament, does not desig- 
nate a place of endless misery to the wickied. But 
these will be more appropriately introduced, after we 
have considered; all the texts in the New Testament 
where Gehenna occurs. 



SECTION IIL 



ALL THE TEXTS, IN WHICH GEHENNA OCCURS, CON- 
SIDERED. 

The term Gehenna in the New Testament, desig- 
nates punishment as all admit, but the question is — 
Vhat is the nature of that punishment ? Does it ex- 
press a place of endless punishment, as Dr. Campbell 
and others assert ? Or, is it used there as a source of 
■Bagery, to describe God's judgments on the Jewish 
imtion, in the destruction of their city and temple ? 

Some indeed have alleged, that Gehenna in the New 
Testament might refer, to — " that dreadful doom of be- 
^ burned alive in the valley of Hinnom.^' But this 




THE WQBD GEHENNA. 133 

is far from being probable, for burning alive in the val- 
ley of Hinnom, was not a Roman punishment ; and in 
our Lord's day, the Jews had not the power to put any 
man legally to death, by any mode of punishment 
whatever. Burning alive in the valley of Hinnom was 
unknown among the Jews. To this horrid practice 
then, I think our Lord could not allude, when he threat- 
ened them with the damnation of Gehenna. 

Schleusner observes, that among the Jews — "any 
severe punishment, especially a shamefiil kind of death, 
was denominated Gehenna." If this remark is correct, 
it well agrees with the prediction of Jeremiah noticed 
above. He had used Gehenna, as a source of imagery, 
to describe the punishment to be inflicted on the Jewish 
Bation ; when on them came all the righteous blood 
shed on the earth. That this punishment was severe is 
certain. Our Lord declared, — " for then shall be great 
tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the 
world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except 
those days should be shortened, there should no flesh 
be saved," Math. xxiv. 21, 22. Josephus said above, 
six hundred thousand dead bodies were carried out of 
Jerusalem and suffered to lie unburied. Their punish- 
ment then, was both severe and shameful, and might 
well be denominated Gehenna, for no place was more 
horrible to Jews, than the valley of Hinnom. It was 
a fit emblem to describe their punishment. 

It cannot be consistently objected by believers in 
endless punishment, that the inspired writers made Ge- 
henna an emblem of the temporal punishment which 
came on the Jewish nation, seeing they make it an enir 
hUm of endless punishment in a future state. To adopt 
the words of Mr. Stuart — " what could be a more ap- 
propriate term than this, when we consider the horrid 
cruelties and diabolical rites which had been there per- 
formed," to describe the horrible carnage of the Jews 
in the destruction of their city and temple. But, let us 

12 



134 AN INQUIRY INTO 

attend to the passages, and see how they agree to this 
view of the subject ? 

Math. V. 22. " But I say unto you, that whosoever 
is angry with his brother Tvdthout a cause, shall be in 
danger of the judgment ; and whosoever shall say to 
his brother raca, shall be in danger of the council : but 
whosoever shall say, thou fool, shall be in danger of hell, 
(Gehenna) fire." This is the first time Gehenna is 
mentioned in the New Testament, and here, our Lord 
addressed his own disciples about it. If it means h^U^ 
the world of woe, I ask, were they in so much more 
danger of going to hell than the unbelieving Jews, that 
he first warned them about it ? Yea, was their condi- 
tion so perilous, that the chief thing, said about Gehen- 
na, was addressed to them ? But the passage, or its 
context, afibrds no proof, that our Lord by Gehenna 
referred to a place of punishment in a fiiture state. 
This sense of Gehenna is assumed, and in face of evi- 
dence to the contrary, as I shall now show. 

slst. In the passage, there are three crimes, and three 
punbhments mentioned. No one supposes, the two 
first refer to a fiiture state. Why then should the 
third ? Is the crime of calling a brother a fool, so much 
worse than the other two, that it puts the person " in 
danger of helly or, endless punishment ? 

2d, The question then is, what did our Lord mean 
by Gehenna f re, or.as Mr. Stuart renders it — " the fire 
of the valley of Hinnom ?" He says — " it is employed 
as a source of imagery, to describe the punishment of a 
fiiture world, which the judge of all hearts and inten- 
tions will inflict." But this is assuming the question in 
discussion ; and deserves no regard. Above, Schleus- 
ner told us — "any severe punishment, especially a 
shameful kind of death, was denominated Gehenna." 
Jeremiah, we have seen, describes the punishment of 
the Jews as a nation under the emblem of Gehenna. 
This punishment was at hand, when our Lord address-* 



THE WORD OEQENNA. 135 

ed his disciples in this passage. What then did he 
mean by " Gehenna fire ?" I answer, nothing can be 
more obvious than this firom the Bible, that fire is a 
common figure to express God's judgments on men for 
their sins. No man can doubt this, who consults the 
following among other passages, Deut. xxxii. 22, 25. 
Isai. Ixvi. 15, 16. v. 24, 25. xxx. 27—33. ix. 18, 19. 
X. 16 — 18. Ezek. xxii. 18 — 22, 41. See also the 
two first chapters of Amos. I shall only quote one or 
two examples in proof, respecting the Jews. Jeremiah, 
Lam. ii. 3, says — " God burned against Jacob like a 
flaming fire, which devoureth round about." And Da- 
vid says, Ps. Ixxxix. 46, " shall thy wrath bum like 
fire ?'* It is contended by believers in endless misery, 
that what is expressed by the word punishment^ ]\Iath. 
XXV. 46, is described figuratively by the word fircy verse 
41. Thus according to the figurative use of the term 
firBy and according to Schleusner quoted above, " Ge- 
henna fire" means " any severe punishment, especially 
a shameful kind of death." And we can be at no loss 
in determining, to what punishment our Lord referred, 
as Jeremiah under the emblem of Gehenna, predicted 
a most severe punishment to the Jewish nation. Where 
could he have found a more appropriate emblem than 
Gehenna ? It was certainly a more appropriate term, 
to describe God's temporal punishment of the Jews, 
than to describe an eternal punishment in a future state, 
of which we know nothing, for no description of it is 
^ven in the Bible. 

3d, Let us inquire, what Gehenna fire our Lord's 
disciples were in danger of? That they were in dan- 
ger of the punishment, God was about to inflict on their 
nation, no one will dispute. See how carefiil our Lord 
was. Math. 24. in pointing out to them how they , 
might escape this punishment. He tells them verse 13 
— " he that shall endure unto the end the same shall be 
saved," Saved from what? The context clearly 



136 AN INQUIRY INTO 

shows, they would be saved from this punishment 
coming on their nation. But the utmost watchfulness 
on their part was necessary, for this day of vengeance 
would come upon the nation unawares, Math. xxiv. 42 
' — 51. Comp. 1 Thess. v. 1 — 10. But, where does 
our Lord show Hke earnestness, in warning his disci- 
ples, that they might escape Gehenna fire, or endless 
misery in a future state ? No where, as all must con- 
fess, and yet most said about Gehenna is to them. 

The following objection may perhaps be urged against 
the above view of this passage. " Allowing Gehenna 
to refer to the temporal punishment coming on the Jew- 
ish nation, why did calling a brother a fool, subject to 
this punishment, rather than the other crimes mention- 
tioned ?" Answer. As Gehenna fire, or God's tem- 
poral judgments on the Jews, is the greatest punishment 
mentioned in the passage, we may expect that the crime 
of which it is the punishment, was also the greatest. 
The word moreh .rendered fool, Dr. Campbell renders 
miscreant ; and in his preface to Mathew's Gospel, says, 
" the word moreh here used by the evangelist, differs 
only in number from morim, the compellation with which 
Moses and Aaron addressed the people of Israel, when 
they said. Numb. xx. 10, with manifest and indecent 
passion, as rendered in the English Bible, Hear now ye 
rebels, and were, for their punishment, not permitted to 
enter the land of Canaan. The word, however, as it is 
oftener used to imply rebellion against God than against 
any earthly sovereign ; and as it includes disbelief of his 
word, as well as disobedience to his command, I think 
better rendered in this place miscreant, which is also, 
like the original term, expressive of the greatest abhor- 
rence and detestation. In thi^ way translated the gra- 
dation of crimes, as well as of punishments, is preserv- 
ed, and the impropriety avoided of delivering a moral 
precept, of consequence to men of all denominations, 
' in wo^rds intelligible only to the learned." 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 137 

Math. V. 28, 29. " And if thy right eye offend thee, 
pluck it out and cast it from thee ; for it is profitable for 
thee that one of thy mfembers should perish, and not 
that thy whole body should be cast into hell, (Gehenna). 
And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off and cast it 
from thee ; for it is profitable for thee, that one of thy 
members should perish, and not that thy whole body 
should be cast into hell, (Gehenna)." Here again, our 
Lord was addressing his own disciples ; and whatever 
was meant by Gehenna in verse 22, the same must be 
meant here as all will allow. Let us then enquire 1st, 
What our Lord meant by Gehenna ? On this text Mr. 
Stuart says — " Most certainly this canpot be understood 
of a literal casting into Gehenna ; for who was to ex- 
ecute such a punishment ? Not the Jewish courts ; for 
they had no cognizance of the offense which a man's 
right hand or right eye moved him to commit, i. e. they 
could not call in question and punish a member of the 
buman body, because it tempted its owner to sin. It 
must then be a punishment which Gdd would inflict. 
But was this a literal casting into the valley of Hinnom ? 
[t may however be said, that the caution of the Savior 
runs thus : — ^ Avoid all temptation to sin, lest you bring 
Ml yourself the terrible punishment of bemg burned in 
the valley of Hinnom, m case you give way to any 
temptation.' This would be a possible interpretation, 
provided the crimes in question could be shown to be 
af such a nature as were punishable in this manner by 
the Jewish courts. But as this cannot be done, this 
exegesis seems to be fairly incapable of admission." 
On this quotation I remark. 

1st, We perfectly agree with Mr. Stuart, that — this 
^amiot be understood of " the terrible punishment of 
being burned in the valley of Hinnom." And we also 
igree with him, that — ^' it must then be a punishment 
Evhich God would inflict." But we ask, does God in- 

12* 



138 AN INQUIRY INTO 

flict no punishment, but that of casting the whole body 
into hell the world of woe ? But, 

2d, What does Gehenna in this passage mean ? It 
is here used twice, but without the word ^rc being add- 
ed. It is no doubt understood, however, from verse 22, 
noticed above, to which I here refer. Our Lord's warn- 
ing here is more alarming, for he says twice, " And not 
that thy whole body should be cast into hell, (Gehen- 
na)." But to understand him as meaning, that their 
whole body should be cast into a place of endless mis- 
ery, is inadmissible. This sense of the term is entire- 
ly assumed, for nothing in the text or its context, leads 
to such a sense. But it does not accord with the facts 
of the case ; for an instance was never known, of an 
individual having his whole body, or soul and body^ cast 
into a place of endless misery. This is not done surely 
at any man's death, as every sexton in the world can 
testify. And to say, it shall be done at the resurrection 
of the dead, is not only an unsupported assertion, but is 
contrary to all the texts which speak of the resurrection. 
It does not even accord with modem preaching. What 
preacher tells his audience, that their whole bodies are 
to be cast into helly the world of woe ? If it is to be 
done at the resurrection, then immortal^ incorruptible 
bodies, are to be cast into this place of endless misery. 
Besides, Christians are in great danger of this, for be 
it remembered, Christ was not speaking here to wicked 
people, but to his own disciples. But are modem Christ- 
ians much alarmed, that their whole body is to be cast 
into endless misery ? But, let us understand our Lord 
here, using Gehenna as Jeremiah did, as a source of 
imagery to describe the punishment God was about to 
inflict on the Jewish nation, and all is plain and con- 
sistant. When it came upon them, there was even a 
literal casting into the valley of Hinnom. Did not Jere- 
miah say, the valley of Hinnom was to be to the Jews 
,, the valley of slaughter; and that they should bury m 



r 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 139 

Tophet, till there was no place. And does not Jose- 
phus declare, six hundred thousand of the carcasses of 
the Jews were cast out of Jerusalem and lay unburied ? 
And who will deny, God inflicted this punishment, al- 
though he used human i^ents to accomplish it ? View- 
ing the subject in this Ught, we see a very good reason, 
for what our Lord here said to his disciples about Ge- 
henna. If any thing, dear to them as a right eye or 
right hand, proved a temptation to sin or apostacy, they 
must part with it. This was profitable to them, for only 
he who endured to the end should be saved. If they 
continued faithful, and obeyed his instructions, they 
should escape the damnation of Gehenna, that punish- 
ment which the unbelieving part of the nation could not 
escape. See on Math. x. 28, and 23, 33, below. ** 

Math. X. 28. "Fear not them who kill the body, but 
are not able to kill the soul, bu^ rather fear him, which 
is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell, (Gehen- 
na)." The following are all the remarks Mr. Stuart 
is pleased Jo make on this passage. " The body mighty 
indeed be literally burned in the valley of Hinnom ; 
but the immaterial^ immortal soul — ^is that to be liter^ 
aUy burned there ?" But in reply to this question of 
his we answer no ; for no Universalist holds any such ' 
opmion, as we think Mr. Stuart ought to know. But 
we ask him in turn — ^how is he to punish the whole 
body, or soul and body in his hell, without ^re or some 
other means of torment ? If soul and body are to be 
tormented there, why not employ fire, just as well as 
any thing else to do it ? Was not his hell, long con- 
sklered a place of literal fire and brimstone ? Do not 
some still speak of it as such ? Is his immaterial iwr 
mortal soul, to be burned there ? But let the punish- 
ment of his hell be what he pleases, if it is taught in 
this text, soul and body according to his views, are to be 
destroyed there. But we have shown above, that this 
is contrary to scripture, facts, and ccxnmon opinions on 
this subject. 



140 AN INQUIRY INTO 

But we ask Mr. Stuart — ^where do the scriptures 
speak about an " immaterialy immortal soul 1 No where. 
Why then does he do it ? Has he forgotten, that he 
told us pmhey Acts, ii. 29, which is the same word for 
so^ in this text, means me. So also its corresponding 
word Nephish Psal. xvi. 10. Until he proves, man has an 
immaterial^ immortal soul, it is premature to speak of 
it as being burned in any place. If he can prove this, 
be can do more than we have ever seen done by any 
man, and hope he will do it without delay. 

But let us attend to the passage, and see what our 
Lord meant to teach by it ? Here, as in the preced- 
ing texts, he addressed his own disciples ; and is teach- 
ing them how to conduct themselves in preaching to the 
wofld. The text and its context show, he was not 
speaking to them on the subject of a future state, but 
fortifying their minds in view of the difficulties they 
were about to encounter. The passage says 1st, "Fear 
not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill 
the soul, (psuhe)." By the body, (soma), all allow, 
b meant the flesnly part of man,, which is here, and in 
other places, distinguished from his psuhe, smU or life. 
The persons who might kill the body were many, and are 
designated by the plural word them. The term here ren- 
dered JciU, means to slay^ put to death, as its scripture 
usage shows. It is here said men can kill the body — 
" but are not able to kill the soul." What then is meant 
by the soul ? Mr. Stuart, and others assert, it means an 
immxxterial, immortal soul, which after death, is suscep- 
tible of happiness or misery in a disembodied state. But 
this must not be assumed. No proof is offered that this 
is true. That psuhe, here rendered soul, often means 
the life, is evident. It is rendered life in verse 39 of 
the context. But it may be objected, if soul only means 
here the life, is not it killed, when men kill the body ? 
We answer no, for thb b most expressly denied in the 
passage. They — " are not able to kill the soul.'' In 
.one sense they do kill it, namely ; the soul or life, vt na 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 141 

longer in the body. But it is not Jcilledy for at death 
the soul or spirit returns to God who gave it, Eccl. iii. 
19 — 212. It returns to the fountain of life, and is to be 
restored to man, an immortal life, in the resurrection. 
After this, man shall not die any more, but shall be equal 
unto the angels which are in heaven. Until this peri- 
od, man's life is hid with Christ in God. It is laid up 
for him, and will then be restored to him. So far as I 
can find firom scripture, man is now mortal, but is to be 
constituted immortal in the resurrection. Indeed, if he 
was now immortal, neither God nor man could kill him, 
for can that which is immortal die 1 But we are told 
in the next part of the verse, that God is able to destroy 
both soul and body." This God can do, for if it pleased 
him he could blot man forever out of existence. It is 
added, 

2d, " But rather fear him, ^vho can destroy both soul 
and body in hell, (gehenna)." The word him, in this 
part of the passage, refers to some one individual, and 
is the contrast to the word them, in the first part of the 
verse. This is obvious. The question is, to what in- 
dividual did our Lord refer ? If it is said, it refers to 
man, the question returns — ^what man is meant ? I also 
ask, how could this one man do, what more than one, 
are said in the former part of the verse, not to be able 
to do ? If it is said, the civil magistrate is t^e man te- 
ferred to, I then ask, could he kill the soul or life, 
which others could not do? Could he "destroy both 
sovJ and body ?" If so, then God himself could do no 
more than this. But unless it can be shown, that de- 
stroying " both soul and body in Gehenna," was a pun- 
ishment inflicted by the civil magistrate in our Lord's 
day, it is not at all probable our Lord referred to him. 
Besides, why should his disciples fear the civil magis- 
trate in this case, yet are commanded not to fear them 
who kill the body. Were his disciples, to have no fear 
of others who killed them, yet were to fear the civil 



142 AN INQUIRY INTO 

magistrate, whose power could not go much beyond this? 
Perhaps it may be said, — according to Schleusner above, 
" any severe pimishment, especially a shameful kind of 
death, was denominated Gehenna. This the civil mag- 
istrate could inflict on Christ's disciples, and hence are 
here exhorted to fear him." But if this was our Lord's 
meaning, his disciples paid little regard to his words, as 
their fiiture history shows. In the execution of their 
mission, they do not seem to have feared even the civil 
authority, so as to be deterred from their duty. See the 
whole book of the Acts of the Apostles. 

Who then is referred to by the word him, whom the 
disciples were commanded to fear ? God, we think is 
the being, and is designated by what He is able to do 
m the next words. He " is able to destroy both soul 
and body in hell, (Gehenna)." It will not I presume 
be questioned, that the terms rendered kill and destroy y 
are in this verse used as similar in import. As the word 
JciU, cannot mean, merely to hurt or punish the body 
in the first clause of the first part of the verse, so nei- 
ther can it mean to hurt or punish the soul in the sec- 
ond clause. And in the second part of the verse, the 
word destroy, is used as an equivelent to the word JciU 
in the first ; and what man in the first part is not able 
to do, God in the second is able to perform. Gt)d " is 
able to destroy both soul and body in hell, (Gehenna)." 
That the terms rendered kill and destroy, are usea to 
express the same thing will appear from the following 
examination of them. 

1st, Let us notice the word apokteino here rendered 
kiU. Its general usage is, to slay, kill, or put to death. 
Mark iii : 4, is the only text where it is used to express 
the killing of the soul or life, " Is it lawful to do good 
<Mi the sabbath days, or to do evil ? To save life, (Psuhen), 
or to kill, (apokteina)." But in the parallel text, Luke 
vi : 9, the word rendered destroy, is used to express 
the same idea, <^ Is it lawful on the sabbath days tp 



THi: WORD GEHENNA. 143 

good, or to do evil ? To save life, (jpsuJien), or to de- 
stroy (apolesai) it?" Let the reader notice, the same 
term FstfJie^ soul, in the text in question, is in these 
texts rendered life, and it is said can be Jcilhd or de- 
stroyed. But can this pmhe, soul, mean an uimiortal 
soul ? And can it be killed or destroyed ? We should 
think not. No sacred writer mentions an immortal soul. 
Why then should it be contended that this is the sense 
of the passage before us. .See Rom. vii: 11, Eph.ii: 
16. 2 Cor. iii : 6, where apoJcteina is used, but which 
have^o relation to our present subject. Let us now 
notice, 

2d, The word apoUumi here rendered destroy. This 
term we have just seen, is used by Luke in Chap, vi : 
9, as equivalent fo apoJcteino, Jcill, in Mark iii : 4 ; and 
both words, are in these texts applied to killing or de- 
stroying the psnhe, sovJ, or lifi. The term appollur- 
vd is also used in the following texts to express destroy- 
ing the psvhe, soul or life. Math, x : 39 — " He that 
findeth his life, (^psuhenY shall lose (apolesei) it;. and 
he that loseth, (apolesas), his life, (^psuhen), shall find 
it." But must a man lose his immortal soul before he 
can find it ? Again, Luke xvii : 38 — " Whosoever shall 
seek to save his hfe, (^psuhen), shall lose, ((qfolesei) 
it ; and whosoever shall lose, (apolese), his Ufe, shall 
preserve it." Is it then true, that the man who seeks 
to save his immortal soul, is sure to lose it ; and he who 
shall lose^it, is certain to save it. This is reversing, 
what is said about immortal souls and their salvation in 
the present day. But again, John xii : 25 ; ^^ He that 
loveth his Ufe, (^psvJien), shall lose, ( apolesei) it ; ^and 
he that hateth his Hfe, (psuhen), in this world shall keep 
it unto Ufe eternal." If psuhe, soul, means an immor^- 
tai soui, then the true way to secure its salvation, is not 
to love it, but to hate it in this world. Again Math. xvi. 
25, 26, " for whosoever will save his life, (jpsuhen), shall 
lofie, (apolesei) it; and whosoever will lose, (apole- 



144 AN INQUIRY INTO 

set), his life, (pmhen) for my sake shall find it. For 
what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, 
and lose his own soul, Qpsuhen).^^ See the same thing 
stated, Mark viii. 35—37. and in Luke ix. 24, 25, the 
same thing is also stated with this variation, " and lose, 
(apolesas), himself, or be cast away." How cast away, 
it may be asked ? . I answer, just as the unbelieving 
Jews were, Rom. xi. 15, and Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 27. 
Again, Luke ix. 56 — " for the Son of man is not come 
to destroy, {apolesai), men's lives, {psuhas), but to save 
them." 

It is now obvious, that in a considerable number of 
of texts, the soul orHife is said to be destroyed. But 
who supposes, (unless grossly ignorant of the terms 
psuhe and apoUvmiy and still worse shutting his eyes 
to the context), that soul means any thing more than 
life or person in the texts which have just been quoted. 
Let life or person, be read instead of soul in them all, 
let their contexts be attended to, and no man can think 
an immortal soul is meant in any one of them. Or, let 
immortal soul be read instead of life, where the word 
is so rendered, and the absurdity of the supposition, 
that this was the the writers' meaning, is at once mani- 
fest. In passing, I have merely hinted at some of these 
absurdities. 

But, the question will probably be asked, why does 
Mathew in this text, make a distinction between sotd 
and body, if soul does not mean an imm>aterial immor- 
tal soul ? Attention to the followmg remarks, will place 
this subjetJt in its true light. It is admitted by all, that 
in scriptiu'e style, a part is sometimes put for the whole, 
and sometimes the whole is put for a part, of the thing 
spoken about. Man, considered as a whole, is one in- 
dividual person. But this person, is in scripture divi- 
ded into three parts ; soma body, psuhe soul, or life ; 
and pnewma spirit. It is with the two first of diese 
distmctions, we are principally concerned in the passage 



THE WOBD GEHENNA. 145 

before us. • Notice then, that the psvJie, or life, is oft- 
en put for the whole man, or person. So is its corres- 
ponding word nephish in the Old Testament. Take 
the following texts as examples, where nephish is ren- 
dered ^souly and is used to express the whole man, or 
the person himself. • Gen. xii. 13, xix, 20. Exod. xii. 
16. lievit. V. 2, XX. 11. Numb. xi. 6, xxxi. 28. Take 
the following texts as a specimen, where pmhe is ren- 
dered soul, and is used to express the whole man, or the 
person himself. Acts, xxvii. 37. 1 Peter, iii. 20. Rom. 
xiii. 1. Acts. iii. 23. PsuJie, is also rendered life, and 
is used to express the whole man, or person. See Math. 
iL 20. John x. 15, with other texts. Take now the 
following texts, as a specimen, where the soma body, 
and the psuhe, soid or life are both mentioned togeth- 
er, and distinguished from each other. Luke xii. 23. 
Math. vii. 25. Also Math. x. 28, the passage now be- 
fore us. Such being th6 modes of speaking used in the 
scriptures, it is plain, if a writer only mentions the 
ptuke, soul or life, he designates the whole man or 
person, by putting a part for the whole. The same 
is the case, if he only mentions the soma body, or 
pnewma spirit But sometimes, the sacred writers, 
designate the whole man or person, by enumerating all 
the three parts into which man is divided, body, soul, 
and spirit. See 1 Thess. v. 23. But to come more 
particularly to the-passage in question. Sometimes the 
sacred writers, designate the whole man or person, by 
only enumerating two of the three parts, into which he 
is divided. This is evidently the case with Mathew, 
in the passage we are now considering. He ^ays, God 
"is able to destroy both soul and body in hell, (Gehen- 
na)." Or, he can destroy the whole man or person. 
That this is his meaning, is obvious from Chap. v. 29, 
30, considered above, where he twice uses the ex- 
pression, thy whole body, to express precisely the same 
thing. No man we think will dispute this. 

13 



146 AN INQ^UIRY INTO 

It is obvious from this examination, that sold when 
used alone, designates the whole man, or the person 
himself. The body also when used alone, likewise de** 
signates the person, or whole man. And when soul and 
body are both mentioned, as in the passage in question, 
it designates no more but the man or person himself. 
Now, men who were able to kill the body, could not 
kill the whole man or person, for this would be to blot 
the man forever out of existence. God only was able 
to do this. He gave man life, it returns to him at death ; 
and he has promised to restore it again, when this cor^ 
ruptible puts on incorruption. But on thi§ view of the 
subject, there is no immaterial^ immortal soul, which 
lives in a conscious state of happiness or misery, in a 
disembodied condition. This doctrine has been the 
fertile source of much error, and human misery. It 
also,. makes void the doctrine of the resurrection. In 
confirmation of these remarks, it may be observed, that 
though the words of the New Testament are Greek, 
the idiom is Hebrew. Besides, it is thought, Mathew 
wrote his Gospel originally in Hebrew, which accounts 
for his using fnore of the Hebrew idiom, as noticed 
above, than Luke does Chap. xii. 4, 5, where the same 
discourse of our Lord is recorded. See on this passage 
below* With the above remarks and illustrations in 
view, we come to the principal question in discussion. 
It is the following. 

What did our Lord mean by Gehenna 1 Whatever 
may be meant by " soul and body," or destroying them, 
it is very plain this destruction of them is said to be 
*< in hell or GehennaJ^ This hell or Gehenna, Dr. 
Campbell, Mri Stuart, and others, take for granted is a 
a place of endless punishment in a future state. We 
siuill here give a condensed view of our reasons, why 
we think this a mistake. 

1st, Such a view of the term Gehenna, is contrary to 
its admitted original signification. It is a compound, gia 



THE WOBD GEHENNA. 147 

a valley f and enm the name of its owner, Hinnam. The 
-valley of Hinnom. All admit this, as seen above. 

2d, This sense given to Gehenna, i3 contrary to its 
usage in the Old Testament. 'Dr. Campbell frankly 
^iedares, it does not mean there, a place of endless 
punishment. No man will allege, it has such a sense in 
the Old Testament. 

3d, Such a sense attached to the term Gehenna, is at 
variance with all the facts stated in the preceding sec- 
tion. If Gehenna means a place of endless misery, they 
ought all to agree with this sense of the word. 

4th, This sense attached to the term Gehenna, is also 
at variance, with a large number of facts to be stated in 
the next section. K this was its true sense in the New 
Testament, they also ought to harmonize with it. 

5th, In no instance, where Gehenna is used in the 
New Testament, is the writer speaking on the subject 
of a future state. The contexts of the texts where it 
occurs, give no countenance to such a sense attached to 
this word. But if this was its true sense, the context 
of some of them, would point out that this was its 
meaning. On the contrary. 

6th, In the contexts of some of the passages where 
Gehenna occurs, the writers show clearly, that by Ge- 
henna punishment, they referred to the punishment of 
God about to be inflicted on the Jewish nation. See i 
particularly Math, xxiii. 33, considered below. No text 
or its context, are opposed to this sense of Gehenna, 
but are rather in favor of it, as seen ilrom our examina- 
tion of all the passages. 

7th, Those who say, Genenna in the New Testament, 
means a place of endless \punishment, entirely assume 
this to be its true sense, without any authority from the 
Old. Their authority, for such a sense is Rabbinical 
writers ; authority, which is rejected on other subjects, 
as of no value. Mr. Stuart, traces the origin of this 
sense ^ven to Gehenna, to a superstitious notioa among 



148 AN INQ^UIBY, INTO 

the Jews, that demons dwelt in the valley of Hmnom. 
He would smile at least, if I traced my sense of Gehen- 
na to such an origin. He does not pretend, that the 
sense he attaches to Gehenna, was of divine origin. 

8th, Giving to Gehenna, the sense of a place of end- 
less punishment in the New Testament, does not har- 
monize, with the phraseology used in the places where 
it occurs. Take for example the passage before us. 
Who believes the whole body, or soul and body are casi 
into, or are to be destroyed in a place of endless pun- 
ishment? This is not done at death as facts shoii^. 
And to say it shall be done at the resurrection is a gra- 
tuitous assertion, which is never asserted in the scrip- 
tures. See also on the passages considered above^ and 
on Mark ix. 42 — 47 below. 

Such are some of my reasons for thinking, Gehenna 
does not signify a place of endless punishment. They 
apply to all the texts, where this term is used in the 
New Testament. We have introduced them here, be- 
cause this is considered the strongest text, to designate 
this place of misery. In view of these reasons, let us' 
look for a moment at this passage. "But rather fear 
him which is able to destroy both soul and body in Ge- 
henna.'^ To say our Lord meant by Gehenna here, a 
place of endless pmiishment, and call on others to be^ 
Ueve it, is 1st, calling on them to believe not only with- 
out evidence, but contrary to evidence. To believe 
this, is not only implicit faith, but a man must shut 
his eyes to evidence, before he can say he believes it. 

2d, Those who beUeve, our Lord here taught that 
Gehenna means a place of endless punishment, seem 
to suppose, God cannot " destroy both soul and body," 
or 2i person, except in their hell. But, is not this a very 
silly supposition ? Pray, what can prevent God from 
d^ing this any where ? He certainly could do this in 
Gehenna^ the literal valley of Hinnom, as the word 
signifies. And could he not do it also, by the punish* 



TH£ WOBD 0£H£NNA. 149 

ment which he brought on the Jewish nation, described 
by Jeremiah under the symbol of Gehenna ? But I ask, 

3d, How was our Lord's disciples likely to understand 
these words ? If God had previously spoken of a place 
of endless punishment by the name Gehenna, we allow, 
in this sense our Lord's disciples might understand them. 
But even this would not be certain : for as the prophet 
Jeremiah, had also spoken of a ten^poral punishment 
coming on the Jewish nation under the symbol of Ge- 
henna, it might be doubtful, if the words did not refer 
to it. But, as God had never before spoken of Ge- 
Kenna, as a place of endless punishment, or, our Lord 
explained it in this sense to the disciples, how could they 
possibly understand his words in the sense which is 
commonly given to them? They could be at no 
loss to understand his meaning, if Gehenna means the 
punishment of God on the nation of the Jews. This 
sense of the term Gehenna, they had learned from their 
own scriptures. No other Gehenna punishment was 
taught there. And no other sense, can be rationally 
and scripturally given to our Lord's words. 

4th, The phraseology of the passage, when correctly 
understood, accords with the view I have given of Ge- 
henna punishment. The phrase, " both soul and body," 
is a mere Hebrew idiom, to express the whole man or 
person, as we have shown above. Our Lord then 
warns his disciples of their danger, in being killed or de- 
stroyed, by the punishment to be inflicted on the Jew- 
ish nation; a punishment as we have seen, which Jere- 
miah predicted under the imagery of Gehenna. He 
does not say, '^ they could not escape this damnation of 
Gehenna," like the unbeUeving Jews, Math, xxiii. 33. 
No. Here, and in other places, as we have seen, he 
showed his solicitude, that they might escape this pun- 
ishment. To rouse them to watchfulness and obedi*- 
ence, he exhorts them to fear him, who is able, or has 
power, to. bring such a punisbment on them, as well as 

13* 



150 AN INQUIRY INTO 

the whole nation of the Jews. To aflBrm, because it is 
said, God " is able to destroy both soul and body in 
Gehenna," that he actually did it, is surely incorrect. 
It is contrary to the fact, whatever sense we give to 
Gehenna. If it means a place of endless misery, I 
ask, did God destroy both the souls and bodies of Christ's 
disciples there ? Surely not. If it means the terrible 

Sunishment God brought on the Jewish nation, I ask, 
id God destroy them with it ? No ; for we shall see 
in the sequel, they did escape this punishment. It is a 
very false conclusion, to say — ^because^ God is abh to 
do a thing, that it is actually done. It is said. Math, 
iii. 9, " God is able of the stones to raise up children 
to Abraham." But according to this reasoning, he has 
actually done this. No one however believes this true. 
It was sufficient to alarm the fears of the disciples, to say, 
God was able to inflict on them the same punishment as 
on the unbelieving Jews. 

5th, If our Lord's words, — " is able to destroy both 
soul and body in Gehenna," designated their punish* 
ment in a future world, his threatenings to his own disci- 

|)les, were far worse than his threatenings to the unbe- 
ieving wicked Jews. On Math, xxiii. 33, below, the 
only place where he threatened them with Gehenna 
punishment, he only says to them — "how can ye es- 
cape the damnation of Gehenna." There, we shall 
show from the context, he meant by Gehenna, the 
punishment coming on the Jewish nation. But can 
any man think, oui: Lord only threatened the unbeliev- 
ing Jews with a severe temporal punishment, and threat- 
ened his own disciples with endless torments in a future 
state ? Who can believe, the disciples were nine times 
solemnly warned about hell, Gehenna, in the world to 
come, and the wicked Jews only once about hell, Ge- 
henna, or temporal punishment in this world ? If Ge- 
' henna had the same sense, when our Lord spoke about 
' ft to both, it is beyond all reasonable question, it merely 



TH£ WOBD GEHENNA. ~ 151 

refers to the punishment of God on the Jewish nation. 
See on Math, xxiii. 33, below. 

6th, If Gehenna refers to punishment in a future state^ 
the passage in question, rather teaches the doctrine of an- 
nihilation than endless misery. If, to kill the body, is to 
put it out of all pain and even- conscious existence ; so, 
to destroy soul and body, or the whole man, must be to 
put them out of all pain and conscious existence. But 
did Christ threaten his own disciples with annihilation ? 
And, was God to cast them into Gehenna in another 
world, to accomplish this ? Excuse me from believing, 
he threatened them with either annihilation or endless 
misery, until the evidence I have produced is destroyed, 
tnd good evidence is adduced^ to prove this is true. 

We have said enough, and perhaps more than was 
necessary on this passage. We have discussed it re- 
peatedly. See my answer to Mr. Sabine, Letters to 
Mr. Hudson, and, Reply to Professor Stuart. See also 
(m Luke xii. 4, 5, below. 

Math, xviii. 9. " And if thine eye offend thee, pluck 
it out and cast it from thee : it is better for thee to enter 
into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to 
be cast into hell, (Gehenna) fire." Mr. Stuart consid- 
ers this text, " an instance of the same nature, as Math. 
V. 29, 30, excepting, that the phrase here is Gehenna 
iou jmros, a fiery Gehenna ; which one cannot doubt 
has the same meaning as unquenchable fire^ Mark ix. 
43, 45, inasmuch as this very phrase is there used to 
explain Gehenna ; the same meaning also as the lake 
offire^ Rev. xx. 14, 15 ; xxi. 8, which is * the second 
death' Rev. xxi. 9." As to the lake of fire^ which is 
the second death, meaning Mr. Stuart's hell, we think 
a great mistake. But, it would be too great a digression 
(ma our present subject, to examine this here. As the 
phrase Gehenna toupuros, a fiery Gehenna^ is consid- 
ered the same as unquenchable fire, Marie ix. 43 — 45, 
we refer the reader to our remarks oa this passage be- 



152 AN INQ^UIKT INTO 

low. See on Math. v. 22, 29, 30, above, for an ex- 
planation of some thmgs in this verse. There, we have 
seen what is meant by a hand or foot offending. Also, 
the figurative use of the term fire has been noticed ; 
and pn the texts already considered, we have seen, that 
Oehenna^ and casting into Gehenna, does not refer to 
punishment in a future state, but to the infliction of 
punishment on the Jewish nation. On thb text how- 
ever with its context, we observe. 

1st, Here, as in all the preceding texts, our Lord ad- 
dressed his own disciples. It is also obvious from the 
context, he was not speaking to them on the subject of 
a future, state. In no text where he speaks of Gehenna, 
was this the subject of his discourse, which circum- 
stance, together with his disciples being chiefly address-' 
• ed about Gehenna, show, it did not refer to punishment 
in a future world. 

2d, The Greek phrase, " Gehenna tou puros,^^ 
which Mr. Stuart renders, ^^ a fiery Gehenna,'' instead 
of meaning, "the lake of fire," or heUin another world, 
he gives "a better explanation of it in his essays p. 141. 
He says, in Gehenna or the valley of Hinnom — " Per- 
petual fires were kept up, in order to consume the offid 
which was deposited there. And as the same offid 
would breed worms, hence came the expression, ^ where 
the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched." The 
allusion, is to the fire in the valley of Hinnom ; and thb 
only increases the strength of the figurative use of the 
term^re, in describing the terrible judgments of God 
on the nation of the Jews. 

3d, In verse 8, it is said,," wherefore, if thy hand or thy 
foot ofifend thee, cut them ofi'and cast them firom thee : 
it is better for thee to enter into Ufe halt or maimed, 
rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into 
everiiasting fire." It will be said, " is not everlasting 
fire in verse 8, the same as the fiery Gehenna verse 9 ?- 
And to be cast into everlastmg fire, the same as to be 



THC WOBD QSHENNA. ' 153 

cast into this fiery Gehenna ? And is not thb t strong 
objection to your views of Gehenna?" We admit ail 
th^ ; and to strengthen the objection, will add the fol- 
lowing. The Greek phrase, pur to aionion, here ren- 
dered everlasting fire, is the same in Math. xxv. 41, and 
rendered by the same words. I also admit, both pas- 
sages refer to the same punishment, and that what in 
these texts, is called everlasting fire, is called everlast' 
ing punishment verse 46. I have no occasion to dis- 
pute this. I admit also, that the same punishment is 
called, " the damnation of hell, or Gehenna," Math^ 
xxiil. 33; ^^ eternal damnation," Mark iii. 29; and is 
also designated, by other terrific expressions too tedious 
to detail. See my second Inquiry, on these and all the 
texts in the Bible, where eternal, everlasting, etc. occur. 
But so far fi'om these admissions, being against my 
views of Gehenna, they strongly confirm them, as I 
shall now attempt to show. I observe then, 

1st, That the phrases Gehenna fire, everlasting fire^ 
damnation of hell, or Gehenna, and eternal damnation, 
were used by Jews, and addressed to Jews, who were 
^miliar with the language of the Old Testament scrip- 
tures. Certainly our Lord was a Jew, and his disciples 
were Jews, whom in the passage before us, he addressed 
ubout everlasting fire, and hell, or Gehenna fire: or 
in plain words, everlasting punishment. No persons 
except Jews, were ever threatened with Gehenna fire, 
either by Christ or his apostles. Nothing is ever said 
to gentiles about Gehenna, as shown in another place. 
As it is then contended, Gehenna fire in verse 9, and 
everlasting fire in verse 8, express the same punish- 
mentj let us consider, 

2d', If an everlasting fire or punishment, was threat- 
ened the Jews in their scriptures, and what that j^re or 
punishment was. Was it in another world ? When, 
and how did this punishment oome upon them ? These 
questions will be noticed in what follows^ Our fear is, 



/ 



154 AN INQ^UIRY INTO 

we cannot spare room, to say all we wish to say on this 
subject, for it has an important bearing on the question 
before us about Gehenna. The first passage I produce 
in proof, that an everlasting fire or pumshmeniy was 
threatened the Jews m their own scriptures, and was 
not in a future state, is, 

Isai. xxxiii. 14. ^^ The sinners in Zion are afraid, 
fearfuhiess hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among 
us shall dwell with devouring fire ? Who among us 
shall dwell with everlasting burnings ?" This passage, 
has been often quoted to prove, the endless duration df 
future punishment. A great mistake, for 1st, It is 
manifest the Jews, and the hypocritical wicked JetoSy 
are the persons designated in the passage. They are 
termed sinners, sinners in Zion, and hypocrites^ which 
agrees with our Lord's words Math. 23, " woe unto you 
scribes and pharisees, hvpocrites.'' Notice, what is call- 
ed — " sinners in Zion,'' m the first part of die verse, an- 
swers, according to the Jewish parallelism, to " hypo- 
crites" in the second ; and their being " afraid" in the 
first, answers to " fearfulness" seizing them in the second. 
A doubt cannot be entertained, that the prophet speaks 
particularly of Jews, and of them only. The questioB 
is, did the prophet refer to the Jews in our Lord s day ? 
The very language of the passage, seems to determine 
that he did. This is confirmed by the context, for the 
days of the gospel dispensation seem to be alluded to. 
For example verse 18, seems to be quoted by the apos- 
tle, 1 Cor. i. 20. The Roman people seems to be 
spoken of verse 19, who were to come against the 
Jews, and destroy their city and temple. And their 
condition at that period, seems to be described v. 11, 
42. The Messian and his times are alluded to verses 
'6, 6. The condition of our Lord's disciples, seems to 
be referred to verses 15 — 17. And fix)m verse 80, to 
the end of the chapter, the peace an4 prosperity of the 
Christie Church; are described, 



THE WOKD GEHENNA. ' 155 

2d, Let us now notice the punishment of the Jews, 
described in this passage. It is not doul)ted, it speaks 
of punishment ; for it is alleged, it teaches endless pun' 
ishment This is drawn, wc presume, 1st, From the 
words Jire and burnings, occuring in the passage. But 
it has been shown m a preceding passage, that fire or 
iumingj is a common figure to describe temporal pun- 
bhment. Nor are we aware, that fire is ever used as 
a figure to designate punishment in another world. 
The expression here, is"" devouririg fire," and the par- 
allelism to it, is " everlasting burnings." After ex- 
SHiining the usage of the phrase, ^^ devouring fire," I 
cannot find it is ever employed to designate punish- 
nent in hetl. But it is used tQ express temporal ca- 
lamites. See two examples, in Isai. xxix. 6 ; xxx. 30. 

2d, The word everlasting being here joined with 
burnings. But who does not know, that the word ev- 
erlasting in the scriptures, often expresses a limited 
period of time ? Yea, who does not know, that it is 
even applied to punishment, when it does not express 
the endless duration of it. That it is so applied, to the 
temporal punishment of the Jews in this very passage, 
the above observations show. But if there should be 
any doubt in the reader's mind about this passage, we 
introduce another, about which there cannot be any 
dispute. It is, 

Jer. xxiii. 39, 40 — " Therefore behold, I, even I, 
will utterly forget you, and I will forsake you, and the 
city that 1 gave you and your fathers, and cast you out 
of my presence. And I will bring an everlasting re- 
proach upon you, and a perpetual shame, which shall 
not be forgotten." On this passage, let it be noticed, 
1st, the same Hebrew word oulm is here rendered ever- 
lasting and perpetual. The passage says — " I will 
bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and an everlast- 
ing shame, which shall not be forgotton." It is well 
known oulm is rendered perpetual, everlasting, eternal, 
fartver^ and is often used to express a limited duration. 



156 AN INQ^UIRY INTO 

2d, Let it be noticed, the Jews are the persons of 
whom the prophet here speaks. He is speaking of 
them as a nation ; and what the Lord should do to- 
wards them at some fiiture period. It is not a narra- 
tive of what was already past, but a predicti(Hi of 
events, which were then future. 

3d, Notice further, the passage predicts a jmmsA- 
ment to the Jewish nation. God was utterly to forget 
and forsake them, and the city he gave to them and 
their fathers. He was also to cast them out of his pres- 
ence, or out of Judea, where the Jews believed God^s 
presence was, as could easily be shown. Moreover^ 
he was to bring on them an everlasting reproach, and 
an everlasting shame, which should not be forgotten. 
This' punishment of the Jews, could not be their sev-. 
enty years captivity in Babylon. This does not answer 
to the strong language of the passage. Besides, the 
Babylonian captivity was just at hand, or, had already 
commenced, as the chronology shows. 

The prediction, is concerning a punishment which 
was future, and of long duration. The language only 
answers in its full force, to God's punishment on the 
Jews at the destruction of their city and Temple, and 
their dispersion among all nations ever since. God 
seems utterly to have forsaken them, and the city he 
gave them. He has cast them out of his presence, and 
brought upon them an everlasting reproach, and an ev- 
erlasting shame, which has lasted eighteen hundred 
years, and is not yet forgotten. 

4th, But does any man think, do the Jews think^ 
that the punishment here mentioned, is in another 
world, or is of endless duration ? No ; not an individ- 
ual, will assert either of these things. The context^ all 
the circumstances of the case show, the punishment is a 
national one, and is of a temporal nature. And if any 
one should ask, why this punishment erf the Jews is 
called perpetual, everUuting, the answer is easy.' All 



THE WOBD GEHENNA. 157 

know, oulm in the Hebrew, and aion and aionion in 
Greek, are 'used to express a limited duration ; and ex- 
press a longer or shorter duration as the subjects to 
which they are applied require. See my second In- 
quiry, and reply to Professor Stuart's essays, where this 
subject is discussed. The present punishment of the 
Jewish nation, may well be called everlasting. It is 
the longest punishment they ever endured as a people. 
It has lasted already eighteen hundred years, and is a 
much longer everlasting, than some mentioned in the 
Bible, as could easily be shown. Their seventy years 
captivity in Babylon, nor no other punishment that I 
have observed, is ever called everlasting, like the one 
they are now suffering. But even their present pun- 
ishment is to end, for the Lord is yet to have m^rcy on 
Israel. They, as a people, are beloved for the fathers' 
sake. It is then put out of all question, that the term 
everlasting is applied to temporal punishment, punish- 
ment which all admit is to end. 

But let us suppose, the term everlasting was applied 
to punishment in a future state, this would not conclu- 
sively prove the punishment to be endless. Why? 
Because we find it applied to punishment in this world, 
whicb does end. It might be so also with its applica- 
tion to punisbiiieut in another world, for any thing I 
can find in the Bible to the contrary. But after very 
mature examination, I must say, I cannot find a single 
instance where everlasting is even applied to punish- 
ment in another world. It is chiefly, from overlooking 
the scripture usage of the words, rendered everlasting, 
etc. which leads people to conclude, that in the Bible, 
punishment is taught in a future world, and that it is 
endless in its duration. So far then from the phrase, 
"everlasting fire," in verse 8, being any objection to 
my views of Gehenna in verse 9, it .strongly con- 
firms them. Gehenna fire, and everlasting fire, in both 
verses, plamly refer, to the punishment which csune on 

14 



158 AN INQ^UTHT INTO 

the Jewish nation at the close of the Mosaic dispensa- 
tion, and which is not yet ended. I think prejudice it- 
self will allow this. 

Math, xxiii. 15, "Woe unto you scribes and phari- 
sees, hypocrites ; for ye compass sea and land to make 
one proselyte ; and when he is made, ye make him 
two-fold more the child of hell, (Gehenna), than your- 
selves." This is the first place in the New Testament, 
where any thing is said about Geherma to wicked men. 
The scribes and pharisees were the persons addressed, 
fis the passage states. Dr. Campbell says, this is one 
of the places where the term Gehenna is used figura- 
tively. And Parkhurst remarks, that — " son of Gehen- 
na, or hell, is one deserving of or liable to, hell." He 
considers, and justly, the expression an Hebrsdsip. See 
Professor Stuart's letters to Dr. Millar, where this is 
shown at length. The words, plainly hnply, that oiir 
•Lord considered the persons addressed children of hell 
or Gehenna, This, according to Parkhurst, means 
" deserving of, or Uable to hell, or Gehenna." Their 
making then: prosel)rte, two-fold more the child of hell 
than themselves, of course means, they made him two- 
fold more deserving of or liable to hell, than themselves. 
T^e question then is, what hell or Gehenna were both 
deserving of, or liable to ? If it is said, eternal misery ; 
the sense evidently is, the Pharisees made their proselyte 
two-fold more deserving of or liable to eternal misery thto 
themselves. But to assume this as the sense of Gehenna, 
is taking for granted the question in discussion. No proof 
of this is oflfered, no evidence of it can be given. Mr. Stu- 
art, after quoting this passage, simply adds the following 
fissertion. " i. e. he is doubly deserving of the punish- 
ment of hell. Surely the Savior does not mean to say, 
that be will suffer double the pumshment literally to ble 
inflicted on them, in the literal valley of Hinnom." 
But this assertion determines nothing. I might retiiAi 
it thu8-=-"^urely the Savior does not mean to say, that 



THJ& WOBJ> GEHEN^tA. 159 

he will sufier dovbU endless torments, in- Mr. St^art'8 
hell." ^ . . ' 

The shnple question to be decided is — what wi^ 
the sense our Lord attached to the word Gehenna 1 was 
it a place of endless^ punishment in a future state ? Not. 
a word in the context favors such an opinjon, for our 
Lord was not discoursing on the subject of a future state^ 
but on the judgments of God coming on the nation of 
the JewSj as we shall see from verse 33, to be consider* 
ed immediately. If our Lord, in verse 33, by Gehet^ 
Tui, meant the temporal punishment of the Jewish na- 
tion, no one will allege, in. verse 15, he meant by Ge- 
henna endless punishment in the world to come. In- 
deed, this sense, would be contrary to its meaning in. 
all the other passages, and no ingenuity could reconcile, 
it, with the facts we have adduced, and still have tq 
produce in the next section. 

Math, xxiii. 33. "Ye serpents, ye generation of vij- 
pers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell (Gehen- 
na)." This is the only other text in the New Testament, 
yrhere any thing is said about Gehenna to wicked men ; 
and the solitary text, where the phrase, *^ damnation of 
haW^ occurs. A very singular /ac^, if it means, endless 
misery in a future state. The only remark, which Mr. 
Stuart makes on this text, is — " does the Savior mean 
here to ask, how can ye escape being burned aliyq in tl^e 
valley of Hinnom ? Were they in danger of this^' 
We answer his question,, very promptly and. pleasantly, 
no. No ; they were in no dsuiger of this, foi; Mr. Stuart 
has shown, burning alive m the valley of Hinnom, was^ 
not a punishment inflicted in the days of our Lord, either 
by J<ews or Romans. To balance this account with Mc. 
Stuart, I ask and in his own words — " does the Savior 
mean here to ask, * How can ye escape being burned; 
inbell the world of woe ? Were they in any danger; of 
this.?'' Having balanced this short account, we may 
now: i^.^pj^e, ^hat our Lord meant to teach, in this^pajs- 
9age ? Let us 



160 AN INQUIRY INTO 

1st, Examine the import of the word kriseos, here 
rendered damnation. This word, means — -judgment or 
punishment. Dr. Campbell and others render tbis word 
punishment. See his note in Math. xii. 40. It is so 
rendered in some places in our common version. But, 
as I have examined its scripture usage in my second in- 
quiry, to it I refer the investigating reader for what I 
have advanced on the subject. Tt would be useless to 
discuss it here, as there is no dispute respecting the sense 
of the word in the passage in question. The sense, 
all admit is — " how can ye escape the punishment of 
hell or Gehenna,^^ I may just notice, what must be 
obvious to every one, that the word damnation y or pun- 
ishment, determines nothing about the place, the nature^ 
or duration of the punishment alluded to. It expresses 
punishment to the persons addressed, but all these things 
must be determined from other sources of evidence, 
than the word here rendered damnation. But the 
word damnation in most people's ears, has a much more 
terrific sound, than either the vford judgment or punish' 
ment. It carries their minds, into a future state for that 
damnation, or punishment. Let us inquire, 

2d, What sense did our Lord attach to the term Ge- 
henna ? The correct understanding of the passage, de- 
pends on assertaining this. If it means, as Mr. Stuart 
and others assert, the place of eternal misery to all the 
wicked, then, beyond all question, our Lord's meaning . 
is — ^how can ye escape the punishment of endless mis- 
ery ? But this sense of the term must not be assumed ; 
it must be established on scripture authority. How 
then, it will be asked, shall we determine, in what sense 
our Lord used the word Gehenna in this passage ? I 
answer, there are three ways at least, in which this may 
be determined, for no scripture question can be deter- 
mined without them. These are — The original rnean^ 
ing of the term Gehenna; its scripture usage; and thet 
context of the passages in question. Let us notice^ 



THK WO^U», 9£H£N9A. 161 

1st J The origmfd meaning of the term Gehenna. 
Pi4 it originally mean hell^ world of woe, the place of 
torpjLent i;es.erved for the punishment of the wicked m 
a future sta^e, as Mr. Stuart and Pit. Campbdl both as- 
sert? No; far from it, as their o;wn testimony citjed 
above shows. I need only very briefly advert tp x\ 
^ere« What do they say, was the original meaning pf 
^e term Gehenna ? Dr. Campbell says — " it is origip 
nally a compound oj the t\yo Hebrew words ge HtTfr 
Uotiiy the valley of Hinnom, a place near Jerusalem of 
which we hear first in the book of Joshua ^v. 8. epi. 
Mr. Stuart makes the same confession in his essays p^ 
HO. On this point, there is not one dissenting voice 
I have ever heard, except Dr. Allen's. Speaking of Qe- 
henna and its punishment, he says in his lecture on ixyy 
first Inquiry, "indeed, the word seems to hs^ve be^ 
{banned, and is used in scripture, for the express and 
sole purpose of denoting fiiture punishment," Reader ; 
cast the mantle of your charity, over this statement^ 
made no doubt without consideration. 

2d,^ The scriptural usage of the term Gehenna^ 
Px)es Gehenna occur in the Old Testament, where it 
designates a place of future punishment for the wicked ? 
No, says Dr. Campbell above ; " In the Old Testament 
we do not find this place in the same manner mention- 
ed. Accordingly the word Gehenna does not occur iipi 
the septuagint. It is not a Greek word and conse- 
quently not found in the Grecian classics. '* This state-, 
ment we have examined section 1. We have also laid 
before the reader all the Texts in tke Old Testament 
where the word Gehenna is found- Not in a single in- 
stance, has it the least allusion tJ a place of fiiture pun- 
ishment. We have seen, it is only used thej^ in two 
senses. First for the literoi vaHey of Hmnom. Sec- 
ond, as a symhql, or sowroC of imagery to describe tha 
temporati punishment Qod was to bring on t^ie Jewislft 
T^^(^(Xf^ Ift. this last 5ense, w^ haye ^^nj^ \% 13, use^ i? 



162 AN INQUIRY INfO 

the New Testament, in all the passages already consid- 
ered. And those yet to be noticed we think strongly 
confirm all we have advanced respecting the sense giv- 
en to this term. The passage before us, deserves par- 
ticular attention. It is considered one of the strongest 
texts in proof, that Gehenna means a place of future 
punishment for the wicked ; and yet, the context of 
this very passage, shows, that the sense I have attached 
to it, taken from Jeremiah, is the true one. 

3d, The context of the passage in question. Does 
the context teach, that our Lord used the word Gehen- 
na, to designate a place of endless torment, reserved 
for the punishment of the wicked in a future state? 
Let us examine and see. That our Lord, speaks on 
the subject of the destruction of Jerusalem, in this and 
the two following chapters, none we think will question. 
But let us examine the more immediate context of the 
passage ? It is manifest from verse 1 of the chapter, 
that what is said in it was addressed to the multitude 
and to the disciples. From verse 2 to 13, our Lord 
spoke to his disciples concerning the scribes and Phar- 
isees, and warned them against certain evils in those 
wicked men. At verse 13, he begins a direct address 
to the scribes and pharisees, and continues it to the 
end of the chapter. Some of them were present, for 
the discouKe seems a very pointed address to them. 
No nian can i^ad from verse 13, to verse 32, without 
noticing, in what a plain and pointed manner our Lord 
exposed their wic^dness and hypocrisy, and how often 
he said to them, " vo, or alas ! unto you scribes and 
Pharisees, hypocrites." But at verse 32, he says to 
them — "fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.'* 
The woris in question immediately follow — " ye ser- 
pents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the 
damnation of hell, (Gehenna).'' Two questions here, 
are presented for consideration.— JEZoi^ were these men 
to fill up the measure of their fathers 7 And — what i$ 
the damnation of hell, which they coviJ^iot escape? 



TH£ WORD GEHENNA. 163 

1st, Let us consider how these men were to fill up 
the measure of then* fathers ? If we consult the con- 
text, it gives us the following answer to this question. 
Verse 34, " wherefore, behold, I send unto you proph- 
ets ; and wise men, and scribes ; and some of them ye 
shall kill and crucify, and some of them shall ye scourge 
in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to 
city." That in this way, the scribes and pharisees 
were to fill up the measure of their fathers, no man 
will question. Their fathers had killed the prophets 
sent to them, verses 30, 31. And they were a genera- 
tion of vipers, proving themselves to be the children of 
such fathers. The measure of their fathers they did 
fill up, by crucifying the Lord of glory, and persecuting 
his apostles and followers. See Acts 2d, where Peter 
charges them with this crime. Comp. John xvi. 1 — 3 
1 Thess. ii. 16. 

2d, Let us now examine, what the damnation of 
Gehenna was, which those men could not escape ? If 
verse 34, answered the first question, verse 35, as cer- 
tainly answers the second. It runs thus — " that upon 
you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the 
earth, from the blood of righteous Abel, unto the blood 
of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between 
the TempljB and the altar." When it is said here, 
" that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed 
upon the earth, all allow that punishment is meant* 
This, punishment coming on them was near, for our 
Lord added in the next words — " verily I say unto you, 
all these things shall come upon this generation." 

The context then clearly decides, that our Lord, by 
the damnation of hell, referred to the punishment God 
was to bring on the Jewish nation during that genera- 
tion. Indeed, if ever the context of a passage can de- 
cide, in what sense the writer uses a word or phrase, it 
is decided in the case before us. But is there a vestige 
of evidence in the context, which shows, that our Lord, 



164 AN IM^UIEY INTO 

by the damnatioa of bell, meant a place of punishment 
reserved for the wicked in a fixture state ? Wo, notbi^ 
which hears the most distant resemblance to this. Let. 
sgiy one a,ttempt, to make out proof of this from, tb^ 
context, and nothing is so likely to cojQivince hini, tli^t 
the interpretation I bs^ve given is correct. It was vol 
making such an, attempt, I was led to this very view of 
the words — damnation of hell, Th^ oi^dy thing, whieh» 
leads people tQ conclude, that these words refer to pmir 
i$hment after death, is tHe /aZse, and entirely gratuitous 
sense aifl^xed to the word hell or Gehenna. B,ut all 
candid men will ^Uow, that if we affix what sense we 
please to the words of the holy spirit, an end is put tot 
all correct interpretation of the scriptures. To recuif 
to the context, in ascertaining the sense of any word or 
phrase used by a writer, is allowed by all, a firs^ rule, 
in explaining his meaning. 

But some things in the context, strongly confirm the 
sense given to the words — damnation of hell. 1st, the 
expression damnation of hell, or Gehenna, occurs in 
this discourse of our Lord's about the destruction of Jer 
rusalem, but in no other discourse he ever delivered. 
Had he, used it when preachmg the gospel, when en- 
forcmg repentance on his hearers, or in speaking on the 
subject of ^ fiiture state, one might be led to suppose, 
he did mean a place of ptinishment there. ' But, being 
used in such a discourse as this, and in no other, seems 
to put it out of all question, that I have rightly inter- 
preted the words — ** damnation of hell or Gehenna.'^ 

2d, The persons to whom the words damnation of 
hell were addressed, confirm my view of this passage, 
They were Jews, as all must allow. To no other per- 
son, is a word said about Gehenna, except them, in the 
whole Bible. Jews, and they only were concerned i^ 
the datamation of hell, for not a word, is said about Ge- 
henna or its punishment, to £tRy Gentile, whetjiei a be-r 
li^v^f in Chriipt or ^n unbeliever* 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 165 

3d, No man will dispute, that verse 35, refers to the 
punishment inflicted on the Jews at the destructicMi of 
their city and Temple, and more fully enlarged on 
Chap. 24th. Well, when our Lord said verse 36, "all 
these things shall come upon this generation," was not 
the damnation of hell, verse 33, and explained verse 35, 
the very thing or things referred to. And as the case 
of the Jews, was past all remedy, and could not escape 
die judgments of God which were impending over them, 
our Lord laments over their condition verses 37 — 39. 

To the view I have given ahove, of the damnation of 
Hell, I am aware it is ohjected 1st, Prophecies have a 
double meaning ; and though our Lord hy the damna^ 
iion of hell, referred to the temporal punishment coming 
on the Jewish nation, in the same expression he might 
include, the endless punishment of the wicked in anoth- 
er world. Does not our Lord, Math. chap. 24th, blend 
in one description, the end of the Jewish state and the 
end of this material world ? To this ohjection several 
answers might be given. 1st. If prophecies have a double 
meaning, why not twenty, or a hundred meanings ? And 
if it is said, our Lord might include, both the above 
meanings in the phrase damnation of hell, let us 
see the proof of this supposition, from the context or 
some other quarter. . What is it, which we may not sup- 
pose, and say, is taught in the bihle, if never called on 
to establish our suppositions. But 

2d, Giving prophecies, a double meaning, exposes 
the scriptures to ridicule, and is abandoned by all rational 
commentators. Mr. Stuart, in his letters to Dr. Chan- 
nipg, p. 126, gives up a double sense to Math. 24th. 
Commenting on verse 36, he says — " of that day and 
hour knoweth no man ; no not the Angels, which are 
in heaven, neither the son hut the father. The day and 
hour, according to some, is the day of Judgment ; but 
as I apprehend, (from comparing the context) the day 
of vengeance to the Jews is meant." But, if he by 



166 AN INQUIRY INTO 

comparing the context, sets aside a double view of this 
text, comparing the context, sets aside a double view 
of the words damnation of Hell. It does more, it set& 
aside the common idea, that these words mean a place of 
endless misery to the wicked. 

3d, Let it be noticed^ the words — damnaticm of hell 
are not a prophesy. No ; they are a very plain dec- 
laration put in the form ol a question — " how can ye 
escape the damnation of hell?" But had they occur- 
ed in Math. 24dj, and were a prophesy, we see from, 
the quotation just made from Mf. Stuart, that only one 
sense could be attached to them, and the context must 
decide, yea has decided their true sense. Their sense 
is, " how can ye escape the impending vengeance coaX' 
ing on you mation." So long as an examination of the 
context, and scripture usage of words, are deemed safQ 
rules in determining the sense of any scripture writer^ 
30 long shall we feel confident, that our Lord by the^ 
damnation of hell, did mean this, and had no refoi^oce^ 
tjo endless misery in another world. 

4th, But this double view of the words,. dannMitiaHi 
of helly does not deserve notice, for it is not only a^merQ: 
assumption, but is assumed in &ce of evidence tf> the 
Gon^rajry. This evident has been stated above. Here 
I add) skice people take the liberty, to give a doul;^: 
se9se to the words damnation of hell, why not use tbe* 
same liberty, and give a double meaning to every pbrase> 
our Lord ever used? For example, with the same 
breath he said-^^^ how can ye escape the damna,ti<Hi oC 
of hell," and <' all these things shall come upon this 
generation." But why not give a double meaning to 
the last words,, and say, he meant also — all these thmg^t 
sba^l come upon this generation in a future world. And>. 
s^U these things, shall come on the generation in which 
we live m the present day. Why not this, as w^U a» 
that, the damnation of Gehenna ^hall come upoa U9 ? 

It wai shewn at some lenglji^ Sect 1,. thitt Jereskiali 



TfiiB WORD cnsflEinrA. llfj 

ttsftde Chhenna or the valley of hinnom, a source of im« 
«gery to describe the punishment God would bring on 
the Jews for their sins. Let the reader now take into 
view, what was there said, in connexion with the pas- 
sage before us, and notice the following things. Jere- 
miah and our Lord, evidently addressed the same peo- 
ple, the Jews. Both speak of a punishment, a dread- 
ful punishment to this people, and they speak of it, 
u3ing the term Gehennat to describe it. Both speak of 
it as punishment in this world, without giving the least 
hint, that it extended to a future state of existence. 
Both confine this Gehenna punishment to the Jews, 
without intimating it belonged to the Gentile nations, 
«r must be suffered by other wicked men. Jeremiah 
feretold, some hundred years before, a punishment to 
the Jews, to the fathers of the very men our Lord ad- 
dressed. Our Lord points them to that prediction, and 
solemnly warns them, " all these things shall come up- 
on this generation." But there are two things, which 
the reader ought distinctly to notice, in which Jeremi- 
ah's prophesy agrees with what our Lord says respect- 
ing Gehenna. 

1st, The prediction of a punishment to the Jews, 
und^ the emblem of Gehenna was a national one ; one 
in which all classes of the nation were to be involved. 
Such is eptactly the punishment of which our Loitl 
speaks in the passage in question, as we have seen 
from the context. This rationally accounts for the fact, 
why our Lord said so much to his own disciples about 
the punishment of Gehenna, and mentioned it only once 
to the unbelieving Jews. They could not escape the 
danmation of Gehenna, but his own disciples might ; 
hence he shews his solicitude, in warning them respec- 
ting it, and instructing them how to escape the severity 
of the vengeance which came on the unbelieving part 
of die nation. On no other view of the term Gehenna, 
^an it it ever be rationally arid scripturally accounted 



168 AN INi^UIRY INTO 

for, why our Lord should say so much* to the disciples, 
and so little to the unbelieving Jews^ respecting the 
punishment of Gehenna. 

2d, The time referred to by Jeremiah when his pre- 
diction should be fulfilled, and the time referred to by 
our Lord exactly agree. No year or date, is mention- 
ed by either of them, but there is a fact or circumstance, 
which answers the same purpose. Jeremiah, in his 
prophecy quoted at length above, said chap. xix. 15, 
" thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Be^ 
hold I will bring upon thjs City, and upon all her 
townSjfl// the evU that I have pronounced against itJ^ 
Notice now what our Lord says, Luke. xxi. 22, " For 
these be the days of vengeance, that all things which 
are written may be fulfilled,'^ Jeremiah could refer to 
no other period of time, nor to any other punishment 
of the Jews, except the destruction of Jerusalem by 
Titus. All the evil the Lord had pronounced against 
it, did not come upon it, until this event took place. 

I may just add — if by Gehenna punishment, our Lord 
did not refer to the punishment predicted by Jeremiah, 
in no other way did he remind the Jews, that such a 
punishment was threatened them. All allow, our Lord 
in Math. 23d and 24th chapters, and in other places, 
spoke of punishment coming on the Jewish nation. Is 
it then in the least probable, he should entirely over- 
look so plain and pointed a prediction, as that in Jere- 
miah. And if it is denied, that by the damnation of 
Gehenna, he did refer to the punishment predicted by 
Jeremiah ; that he meant endless misery in a future 
world ; how happened he to tell the Jews about this, 
in a discourse where he is certainly speaking of tempo- 
ral punishment, yet never said a word about endless 
punishment in Gehenna on any other occasion. If re- 
ally, the damnation of Gehenna, means hell the world 
of woe, why should he introduce it in such a discource to 
the unbelieving Jews ? why speak of it only once to 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 169 

I 

them ? and why speak of it as a thing they could 
not escape. The great object of modem preachers, 
in warning people about hell, is, to tell them they can 
easily escape it, by qbeymg their directions. But our 
Lord, had no directions to give the unbelieving Jews, 
how they might escape the damnation of Gehenna, 
The cup of their iniquity was nearly filled up, and the 
wrath of God was coming upon them to the uttermost. 
Before I dismiss this passage, permit me to bring the 
prophesy of Jeremiah a little more into view in connec- 
tion with it. See this prophesy considered above, chap, 
ii. sect. 1, which ought to be consulted and compared 
with the passage under consideration. On both, taken 
together, I submit the following remarks. 

1st, Who does not see, that the prediction of Jere- 
miah and the discourse of our Lord, Matth. chaps, 
xxiii. and xxiv. speak of the same events ? Com- 
paring both with that part of Josephus' history of the 
siege of Jerusalem, we see both minutely and aiFecting- 
ly fulfilled. 

2d, It could not appear strange to the Jews, that our 
Lord, should speak to them of the damnation or pun- 
ishment of Gehenna, for under this very emblem the 
prophet Jeremiah had foretold great and dreadfiil ca- 
lamities to this people. With the prophet's language 
the ears of the Jews were familiar, so that they had no 
occasion to ask what he meant by the damnation of hell. 
Nor could they find fault with him, in calling to their 
remembrance, a punishment to which they were expos- 
ed, so, long ago foretold, but which was now near, even 
at the doors. Indeed, nothing but blindness of mind could 
have prevented them from fearful anticipations of such 
dreadful calamities. . Accordingly they asked no ex- 
planation, nor seemed surprised at our Lord's saying, — 
" how can ye escape the damnation of hell ?" Is this 
likely to have been the case, if by this expression the 
Jews understood him to threaten them with eternal 

15 



170 AN INi^UIRY INTO 

misery in the world to come ? No sentiment our Lord 
ever uttered, was more calculated to shock their feelings, 
and rouse their indignation against him. To understand 
our Lord in this sense, was entirely at variance with their 
pride, prejudices, and religious opinions ; for the Jews 
had no idea that any of their nation should ever suf- 
fer eternal misery. See Whitby's note on Rom. ii. 

3d, Let us for a moment suppose, that any of the decla- 
rations concerning Gehenna, in the New Testament,[had 
occurred in the above prediction of Jeremiah. For ex- 
ample, let us take the words of our Lord before us, — 
" how can ye escape the damnation of hell ? I ask 
any candid man, how the Jews would have understood 
these words, had they been uttered by the prophet, or 
how we would understand them ? It will, I presume, be 
readily answered, that the prophet would be understood as 
threatening the temporal punishment which he had been 
predicting. Must the words damnation of hell, then, only 
mean temporal punishment, in the mouth of Jeremiah, 
but in our Lord's, eternal misery ? If these words would 
have conveyed no such idea in the days of Jeremiah, 
why should they in the days of our Lord, and especially, 
as he not only seems to allude to Jeremiah's prophesy^ 
but introduces them In a discourse to the same people, 
?uid in treating of the same temporal punishment ? It will 
not be said, that our Lord was discoursing about a fu- 
ture state of existence, or even on a different subject 
from that of the prophet when he used this expression. 
/No : the subjects are precisely the same, ai)d the same 
people were addressed. 

4th, I ask, was the expression, ^'damnation of hell," 
understood when our Lord used it, or was it without any 
meaning ? If the latter, then the idea of eternal misery 
is given up, at least from this expression. Besides, it is 
not very honorable to our Lord, to say he used this ex- 
pression without any meaning. If the former is contend- 
ed ibr, in what way was our Lord understood by his 



Ik 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 171 

hearers ? Nothing is said in the Old Testament, inti- 
mating that Gehenna was to have a different meaning 
under the gospel dispensation. Nor, in the New Testa- 
ment is any thing said, showing that Gehenna was used 
there in a different sense from that which it had in the 
Old. By whose authority, and upon what rational and 
Scriptural ground, do we then interpret Gehenna in the 
passage before us, so differently from its allowed sense in 
the Old Testament ? Our Lord was a Jew, and he spoke 
to Jews, who bad the Old Testament in their hands. 
Until it is proved to the contrary, we conclude, that the 
Jews must have understood our Lord, by Gehenna,, as 
their Scriptures taught them. We think, all will allow 
that this is at least a rational conclusion. That it is a cor- 
rect one, ought not to be denied, unless it is shown our 
Lord laid aside the sense in which Jeremiah had used the 
word Gehenna, and adopted a new sense on mere human 
authority. If our Lord did this as to the word Gehenna, 
we doubt if another instance of the kind can be produced 
from the New Testament. If it were proved that he 
did so, it follows, that instead of calling the attention of 
the Jews to the true sense of Scripture, he rather en- 
couraged them in a sense put on Scripture words of 
men's own invention. We have seen that Dr. Camp- 
bell avers, that our Lord spoke to the Jews in the dia-. 
lect of their own Scriptures, and used words to which 
their' reading of the law and the prophets had accustomed 
them ; and yet he contends for a sense given to Gehenna 
in the New Testament, which it never had either in 
the law or the prophets. 

5th, If we are to be indebted to the writers of the Tar- 
gums,* how to understand the word Gehenna or hell, 
but few people could ever understand the New Testa- 
ment on this subject. Is there one in a thousand who ever 
saw the Targums ? and is there one in ten thousand who 

* See the ai^ument, drawn from the Jewish Targiims, in favor of Ge-» 
beooa beuig the place of endless panisbment, considered sect. v. 



172 AN INi^UIRY INTO 

ever read them ? But until we have learned from such 
writings the sense of the word Gehenna, we must either 
remain ignorant, or take this sense at second hand from 
others. But put the Bible into a man's hands, let him 
search it on this subject, and compare the New with 
the Old Testament, would he ever conclude that the 
New Testament sense of Gehenna was so different from 
that of the Old ? No ; he would soon perceive that 
there is an agreement, and a very striking agreement, 
between both Testaments in the sense and application 
of the word Gehenna. Scripture usage, and the con- 
text, safe rules in all other cases, would soon lead such 
a person to the same conclusion to which I have come, 
that our Lord by " the damnation of hell," did not mean 
punishment in a place of endless misery. But it seems 
these safe rules of interpretation, must all be laid aside, 
to sit down at the feet of the writers of the Targums, 
to learn the meaning of Gehenna. But it is well known, 
how little confidence most people place in those writings 
in other cases, though their authority is considered good 
by many in the one before us. 

6th, That Gehenna was made an emblem of tempo- 
ral punishment to the Jews, rests on divine authority. 
But, that it was made an emblem of eternal misery, rests 
merely on human authority. Let us state a case, where 
system and preconceived opinion being out of sight, we 
would give a just decision, which of these authorities 
ought to be preferred. Suppose this case then reversed. 
In the Old Testament, let us suppose the word Gehenna 
to mean the place of eternal punishment for all the wick- 
ed. That this was its allowed sense, by critics and com- 
mentators, and that it never, in a single instance, meant 
temporal punishment. Suppose fiirther, that the term 
Gehenna occurred twelve times in the New Testament. 
That upon examining one of the texts in which it occur* 
red, say the passage before us, it evidently had the same 
sense as in the Old Testament. That the text and 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 17 



o 



context clearly decided this to be its meaning. But 
aUniversalist informs us from the Targums, that Gehen- 
na, in the Old T^estament, in process of time, came to 
be used as an emblem of temporal punishment, and at 
last came to be confined to it ; and that this was always 
and indisputably its meaning in the New Testament. 
This he roundly asserts, without any attempt at proof 
on the subject. — I ask, what decision we would form in 
this case ? Let candor decide, if we would not say that 
the doctrine of eternal punishment was put beyond all 
debate. And would not every man agree to condemn 
the Universalist? Happy, then, is the man who con- 
demneth not himself in the thing which he alloweth. 
But what would be the decision in favor of eternal pun- 
ishment, and against the Universalist, if upon examin- ^ 
ing all the other eleven places in the New Testament, 
it was found, that Gehenna had the same or a similar 
sense as it had in the Old Testament, and in the one 
in the New Testament where the context so clearly de- 
cided ? The triumph of the doctrine of eternal misery 
would be complete. — We shall leave it for every man 
of candor, what to say, if it is proved, that all the re- 
maining passages which speak of Gehenna corroborate 
the views I have advanced on the passage we have been 
considering. But all this is strongly confirmed by a 
number of facts, showing that no other sense could be 
rationally attached to the term Gehenna. We have ad- 
duced a few facts already, and have yet some more to 
produce, proving^ that Gehenna cannot mean a place of 
endless misery for the wicked, but that it referred to 
the temporal vengeance coming on the Jewish nation. 
We should like to see an equal number of such facts 
produced, showing that Gehenna does not mean this 
temporal vengeance but eternal misery, before we are con- 
demned for refusing to believe that this is its meaning. 
7th, Supposing that the term Gehenna, in this pas- 
sage, was equivocal^ as it certainly is not, still accord- 

15* 



174 AN INQ,UIRY INTO 

ing to Dr. Campbell, my interpretation of the passage 
is correct. In his third Dissertation, sect. xi. he says : 
"Nothing can be more pertinent, or better founded, 
then the remark of M. Le Clerc, that "a word which 
is equivocal by itself, is often so clearly limited to a 
particular signification by the strain of the discourse, 
as to leave no room for doubt." The strain of our 
Lord's discourse in this chapter, fixes the sense of 
Gehenna, to be what I have stated, so clearly and de- 
cisively, that no room is left for doubt. But let us 
hear Dr. Campbell further. In his ninth Disserta- 
tion, part i. sect. 13.' he says, — " When a word in a 
sentence of Holy Writ is susceptible of two interpre- 
tations, so that the sentence, whichsoever of the two 
ways the word be interpreted, conveys a distinct 
meaning suitable to the scope of the place ; and when 
one of these interpretations expresses the common im- 
port of. the word in Holy Writ, and the other assigns 
it a meaning which it plainly has not in any other pas- 
sage of Scripture, the rules of criticism manifestly re- 
quire that we recur to the common acceptatioii of the 
term." This is just what I have done with the term 
Gehenna, in the passage before us. I have given it a 
meaning, "suitable to the scope of the place." The 
s^ense I have given it, also " expresses the common im- 
port of the word in Holy writ," where it is used as an 
embleiti of punishment in the Old Testament. We shall 
see that it agrees also with all the places where it oc- 
curs in the New. The interpretation commonly given 
to Gehenna, "assign it a meaning, which it plainly 
has not in any other passage of Scripture." " The 
rules of criticism manifestly require" then, the interpre- 
tation which I have given this passage. The commonly 
received sense of this word, is therefore contrary to 
the rules of criticism, as declared by Dr. Campbell him- 
self. 
I am aware that I have dwelt longer on this passage 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 175 

than was absolutely necessary. This I have done for 
several reasons. It is one of the principal texts, suppos- 
ed to teach the doctrine of hell torments. — It is also 
the only text, where a punishment of Gehenna or hell, is 
threatened wicked men in the New Testament, wheth- 
er Jew or Gentile. It is also a text, the context of which 
decides clearly, what our Lord meanjt by the punishment 
of Gehenna. It serves as a key to unlock the meaning 
of other places, where the circumstances in the context^ 
may not so clearly determine the sense of Gehenna. 
If our Lord in this passage, did not mean by Gehenna a 
place of endless misery, there is no probability that in 
any other this was his meaning ; for here he spoke to 
men, whom Josephus says, were the wickedest race of 
men that ever lived on the face of t;Jie earth. Since 
by the damnation of hell, he did not threaten them with 
eternal punishment it is not to be supposed that in any 
of the other texts he did this ; for what is said in them 
is addressed to his disciples. It is not likely he used 
Gehenna to express both a place of temporal and eter- 
nal punishment ; and it is less likely that he should 
threaten the unbelieving Jews with the former, and 
his o\vn disciples with the latter. 

Mark. ix. 43 — 49. " And if thy hand offend thee, 
cut it off : it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, 
than having two hands to go into hell, (Gehenna), inta 
the fire that never shall be quenched ; where their 
worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if 
thy foot offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to 
enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into 
hell (Gehenna) into the fire that never shall be quench- 
ed ; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is 
not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it 
out : it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of 
God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into 
hell (Gehenna), fire; where their worm dieth not and 
the fire is not quenched 1 ! Concerning these verses, 



176 AN INQUIRY INTO 

Professor Stuart simply says — " The like cases with 
Math. V. 29 ; xviii. 9, and where in both instances, to 
pur to asbeston, unquenchable fire is added, in order 
to explain the tremendous nature of the Gehenna in 
question. " What then is the Gehenna in question ? 

This being the most terrific, and full description of 
Gehenna Jire, given in the New Testament, we shall 
give it a carefiil consideration. It ought to settle the 
question, that Gehenna, does not refer to a place of end- 
less punishment in a future state. Let it then be ob- 
served, several thmgs are mentioned in this passage, 
which have been noticed already. For example, we 
have seen what is meant by cutting off a right hand, or 
plucking out a right eye, and need not be here repeat- 
ed. It has also been shown above, that the term JirCy 
is a common figure in scripture to express punishment, 
and punishment in this world, inflicted on men for their 
sins. The question in dispute isj does Gehenna JirCy 
in this and other texts, express punishment in a future 
state ? We have also noticed above, the expression 
" to be cast into hell fire." In this passage, we have 
the expression *' to go into hell" once, and, " to be 
cast into hell" twice, which express the same thing. 
Let us first notice the things which are contrasted in 
this passage. 

1st, To " enter into life," or, " into the kingdom of 
God," is contrasted with " going into, or, being cast in- 
to hell or Gehenna." If it can be shown then, that to 
enter into life, or into the kingdom of God, does not 
meail to enter into heaven above, so to be cast into Ge- 
henna, or to go into it, does not mean to go into, or be 
cast into hell beneath. If kingdom of God, or life, re- 
fers to the heavenly world, I am willing to admit, Ge- 
henna refers to a world of woe. Congruity in the con- 
trast demands this. But we are confident this never 
can be proved. 

2d, Entering into life, or into the kingdom of God, 



.1 



THE WORD G£HENNA. 177 

with the loss of a hand, a foot, or an eye, is contrasted 
with going into, or being cast into Geheniia, without 
the loss of any of these. But who ever speaks, of en- 
tering into the heavenly state with the loss of their bodi- 
ly members ? or, of sending sinners to hell with their 
members being mutilated ? Let it be admitted, our 
Lord only meant, that his disciples, in order to enter 
into life, or the kingdom of God, must part with thmgs 
as dear to them as a right hand or eye. — ^What then ? 
This may suit the one side of the contrast, but it does 
not suit the other ; for I ask, do those who go to hell, 
carry with them there, things the other parted with, 
in order to get to heaven? as this will not be pretended, 
something else than heaven and hell, must be meant by 
kingdom of God and Gehenna in this passage. What 
then is the true meaning of this language ? 

1st, In this passage, we have the phrase, — ^^ to enter 
into life," twice: and "to enter into the kingdom of 
God" once. Dr, Campbell, in his fifth dissertation, 
conclusively shows, that these two phrases, are used by 
the writers of the New Testament to express the same 
thing. This must be obvious enough, to any person 
who reads the four gospels with attention. But to 
enter into the kingdom of heaven, or kingdom of 
God, does not mean, entering into heaven in a future 
state as many suppose, but entering into the reign or king- 
dom of the Messiah in this world. See the dissertation 
just referred to. John, Jesus, and his disciples, preach- 
ed this kingdom as coming, as at hand. Christ's reign 
or kingdom, did not, properly speaking, commence, un- 
til after his resurrection from the dead, when God ex- 
alted him to his right hand — saying, " sit thou on my 
right hand until I make thy foes thy footstool." In- 
deed, in one sense, his kingdom did not come until the 
destruction of Jerusalem. Respecting this, Dr. Camp- 
bell in his note, on Math. xix. 28, says — <^ we are accus- 
tomed to ^pply the term regeneration $olely to the con- 



178 AN INQ,UIRY INTO 

version of individuals ; whereas its relation here is 16 
the general state of things. As they were wont to de- 
nominate the Creation Genesis, a remarkable restora- 
tion or renovation of the face of things, was very suita- 
bly termed palingenesia. The return of the Isralites to 
their own land, after the Babylonish captivity, is so 
named by Josephus, the Jewish historian. What was 
said in verse 23. holds equally in regard to the promise 
we have here. The principal completion will be at the 
general resurrection, when there will be, in the most 
important sense, a renovation or regeneration of heaven 
and earth, when all things shall become new ; yet in a 
subordinate sense, it may be said to have been accom- 
plished, when God came to visit, in judgment, that guilty 
land ; when the old dispensation was utterly abolish- 
ed, and succeeded by the Christian dispensation, into 
which the Gentiles from every quarter, as well as Jews, 
were called and admitted." 

It is very evident, our Lord did not think his king- 
dom had come during his lifetime. He said to his dis- 
ciples Math, xviii. 3. " Verily I say'unto you, except 
ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall 
not enter into the kingdom of heaven." It may be 
said — ^were not the disciples already in this kingdom ? 
No ; for our Lord's words plainly imply, that they 
were not ; nor could they afterwards enter it, except 
they were converted. On this text Dr. Campbell says — 
*^they must lay aside their ambition and worldly pur- 
suits, before they be honored to be members, much 
more the ministers, of that new establishment or king- 
dom he was about to erect." See also Dr. Mack- 
night who gives a similar view of it. It is evident, 
from Luke xxii. 18, and other texts, that our Lord's 
kingdom was not come just before his death. But the 
very passage in question, fairly implies, that in some 
sense, our Lord's disciples were not in his kingdom. 
If they were, why is it said to therp — " it is better for 



THE WORD G£H£NNA. 179 

thee to enter halt into life," and, ^' it is better for thee 
to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye." etc. 
Those who wish to see further proof that the kingdom 
of heaven, or kingdom of God, was not come when our 
Lord spoke the passage in qivestion, may consult Luke 
xxi. 31, 32. Mark ix. 1. Comp. Math. xvi. 28. 

2d, We shall now examine, what our Lord meant 
by Gehenna fire, the contrast to life, and Mngdom of 
God, in this passage. Gehenna fire, is here mentioned 
three times. What then did our Lord mean by it ? our 
Lord explains what he meant thus " into the fire that 
never shall be quenched ; where their worm dieth not, 
nor the fire is not quenched." As Gehenna fire is 
three times mentioned, so the explanation is three times 
repeated. Mr. Stewart, p. 144, admits, that this is 
our Lord's explanation of Gehenna fire. All then we 
have got to do, is to ascertain correctly the true sense of 
this explanation. It divides itself into two parts which 
I shall now examine. Our Lord says, 

1st,, " Into the fire that never shall be quenched.^^ 
Do the scriptures then speak of " a fire that never shall 
be quenched," in a future state of existence? No, 
This I am confident is no where to be found in the Bi- 
ble. But I find an " unquenchable fire," or, " a fire that 
never shall be quenched," often mentioned there. It 
is said in Math. iii. 12, '^ whose fan is in his hand, and 
he will thoroughly purge the floor, and gather his wheat 
into the gamer ; but he will bum the chaflf with un- 

Suenchable fire." The same is repeated Luke iii. 17. 
Hre, we have seen on a former passage, is a figure 
for punishment. Jesus, was to separate the good from 
the bad of the Jewish nation ; the former he should 
gather mto his gamer the church, but the latter, he 
should punish, or bum with imquenchable fire. This he 
did at the end of the age. Their ^re, or punishment, 
is not yet ended. 
But, let us now see, from whence the language is 



180 AN INQ,UIRY INTO 

borrowed, " A fire that never shall be quenched," or, 
an " unquenchable fire"! It is fi:om the Old Testament. 
The reader may consult the following places, where a 
fire that shall not be quenched is mentioned. Amos v. 
6. Isai. xxxiv. 10. and i. 31. Ezek. xx. 47, 48. But 
I quote the following passages, which are directly to our 
purpose 2. Kings xxii. 16, 17. " Thus saith the Lord 
God, behold I will bring evil upon this place, and upon 
the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book — 
which the king of Judah hath read : because they have 
forsaken me, and have burnt incense unto other Gods, 
that they might provoke me to anger with all the works 
of their hands; therefore my wrath shall be kindled 
against this place and shall not be quenched." The 
same is repeated, 2. Chron. xxxiv. 24, 25. Agadn, it is 
said, Jer. iv. 4. " Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, 
and take away the foreskins of your heart ye men of 
Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem ; lest my fiiry come 
forth like fire and bum that none can quench it, because 
of the evil of your doings." Again, Jer. vii. 20. " There- 
fore thus saith the Lord God, behold, mine anger and 
my fiiry shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, 
and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and 
upon the fruit of the ground ; and it shall bum, and 
shall not be quenched." Again, Jer. xvii. 27. " But 
if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the sabbath- 
day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the 
gates of Jemsalem on the sabbath-day ; then will I 
kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour 
the palaces of Jemsalem, and it shall not be quenched." 
Once more, it is said, Jer. xxi. 12. "O house of 
David, thus saith the Lord, execute judgment in the 
mommg, and deliver him that is spoiled out of the hand 
of the oppressor, lest my fiiry go out like fir^, 
and bum that none can quench it." Such are the texts, 
which speak of an " unquenchable Jire,^^ or, " a Jire 
that never shall be quenched; and on which I shall nud^e 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 181 

the fpllowing remarks, in connection with the passage 
before us. 

1st, God's wrath is said to be Icindled, and shall not be 
quenched. So is his fury. It is said to " burn and shall , 
not be quenched J^ God's wrath and fury, are com- 
pared to Jire^ for it is said — " lest my fury come forth 
like fire, and bum that none can quench it." But 
God has no such evil passions, as anger and fury ; nor 
do these burn like literal fire. No, the above passa- 
ges sufficiently explain what is meant by his anger and 
niry — namely, his judgments, or the punishments, he 
inflicts on men " because of the evil of their doings/' 
Perhaps no figure could be more appropriate, than fire 
to describe this. And a Gehenna fire, is peculiarly 
appropiate to describe God's judgments on the Jewish 
nation, for nofir^ was so terrible to Jews as the fires 
which had existed in the valley of Hinnom, whether 
we view t^iem as used to consume the human sacrifices 
made there, to bum persons alive, or to consume the 
ofial of the city of Jerusalem. As the punishment God 
inflicted on the Jewish nation, exceeded all the punish- 
ments which bad ever been or will be inflicted on men, 
so no figurative use of the term fire could so well ap- 
ply to it as the fire of Gehenna. 

2d, Let it be specially noticed, all said in the above 
passages about an unquenchable fire," or, " a fire that 
never shall be quenched," was spoken concerning the 
Jews as a nation. The punishment thus described un- 
der the figure of fire, was to come on them for sins. 
Some of these sins are particularly specified, one of 
which is, they had — " burnt incense unto other Gods." 
It is called an unquenchable fii'e, not on account of its 
endless duration but its loijg continuance, as we shall 
see afterwards. No such unquenchable fire was threat- 
ened to the Gentiles. Jews, and the Jews as a nation, 
are the persons threatened with this punishment, which 
exactly agrees to what is said about Gehenna. Jews, 

16 



182 AN IN(^UIRT INTO 

and Jews only, are threatened with Gehenna punish- 
ment in the New Testament. 

3d, The anger, and wrath, and fury of the Lord, des- 
cribed in the above passages, under the figure of a 
" fire that should not be quenched, '* does not extend 
to another world. Nothing like this is intimated. On 
the contrary, it is particularly specified, in what God's 
anger, wrath, and fiiry consisted, and where the Jews 
were to suflfer it. His anger and fury, was not to be 
poured out in Hell, but '' upon this place and upon the 
inhabitants thereof, ^^ which was the land of Judea and 
Jerusalem. His anger, was to " be poured out upon man 
and upon beast, and upon the, trees of the field, and up-^ 
on the fruit of the ground,'^ It was to be " kindled 
in the gates of Jerusalem, " and was to " devour the 
palaces of Jerusalem,^' etc. If a single drop of God's 
wrath was to be poured out on the Jews in HeH, or in afur 
ture state, it is very strange the above passages say noth- 
ing about it. And, that the expression, ^^ an unquench- 
able fire," does not mean endless in duration, is man- 
ifest, for this is spoken concerning the trees of the field, 
firuits of the ground, the gates and palaces of Jerusalem, 
as well as the Jews themselves^ The dispersed condi- 
tion of the Jews, and the waste condition of Judea and 
Jerusalem, afford a plain comment on the abova passa- 
ges. 

2dy Our Lord still fiirther explains what he meant 
by Oehenna fire, thus : " where their worm dieth not, 
and the fire is n^ot quenched.^^ But where is the fire 
not quenched? The answer is — "where their VForm 
dieth not." Where then is this"? It is in Gehenna as 
the connection shows. But is this Gehenna in a fu- 
ture state? Let us hear Mr. Parkhurst about this. 
On the word Gehenna he says — " our Lord seems to 
allude to the worms, which continually preyed on the 
dead carcasses, that were cast out into the valley of 
Hkmom, Oehennan^ and to the perpetual fire kppt up 



THE WORB GEHENNA. 183 

to cjtesume them. Comp. Eccles. vii. 17, Judith xvi. 
17. And see the learned Joseph Modes works fol. p. 
31." Mr. Stuart §ays, in the valley of Hinnom, Ge- 
henna — " perpetual fires were kept up, in order to con- 
sume the offal which was deposited there. And as the 
same offal would breed worms, hence came the expres- 
sion, " where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not 
quenched." Here then is the pl^^ce, " where their 
worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched," stated 
by Drs. Parkhurst and Stuart, both believers in endless 
misery. It is not in hell, the world of woe, but in the 
valley of Hinnom. Here there were worms; here 
there was a fire not quenched, by their own showbg. 
But are these things in hell, their world of woe ? It 
was long believed, hell is a place of literal fire, but now 
this is discarded by most intelligent men. The idea, 
of literal worms being in hell no one ever believed ; 
hence the worm that never dies, is interpreted to mean 
conscience, which is to torment the damned forever. 
But this is a private interpretation, for conscience, is 
not spoken of under the figure of a worm by any sa- 
cred writer, either in this world or a future state of exr 
istence. There is nothing, in this passage or its con- 
text, which intimates, that our Lord was speaking on 
the subject of a fiiture state, or that by Gehenna he 
referred to a place of endless punishment. 

By what means then, shall we decide with certainty, 
what our Lord meant by the words, "where their 
worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched ?" As 
this is his own explanation, of what he meant by Ge- 
henna, it must be decided, by the sense of the passage, 
our Lord here quoted from the Old Testament. It is 
the following, 

Isai, Ixvi. 24. " And they shall go forth and look 
upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed 
against me ; for their worm shall not die, neither shall 
their fire be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring 



184 AN INi^UIRY INTO 

unto all flesh." Mr. Stuart, in his letters to Dr. Chan- 
ning p. 69, makes the following remark, which well ap- 
plies here. " It will be remembered that the passage in 
question is a quotation from the Old Testament ; and 
that to quote the language of the Old Testament, there- 
fore, in order to explain it, is pecuharly appropriate and 
necessary." Let us see, how peculiarly appropriate 
this passage from, the Old Testament is, in explaining 
the words of our Lord before us. 

1st, When Isaiah said — "for their worm shall not 
die, neither shall their fire be quenched," did he mean 
to describe AeZZ, the world of tvoe 1 No man we think 
will affirm this. But this must be affirmed, unless it is 
alleged, our Lord altered the sense of this passage in 
quoting it. Jesus gives no intimation, that these words 
spoken by Isaiah had one sense, and when quoted by 
him, another ; that Isaiah only referred to temporal pun- 
ishment, but he to endless hell torments. 

2d, When the Jews read the words in the prophet, 
" for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be 
quenched," if they did not understand them as describ- 
ing helly the world of woe, how could our Lord's disci- 
ples understand them so, when he quoted them ? To 
say, these words when quoted by him, had such a sense 
affixed to them, and were so understood by the disci- 
ples, implicates both, in perverting the Old Testament 
scriptures. 

3d, What then is the meaning of the words in Isaiah, 
" for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be 
quenched ?" Let it be noticed generally, the chapter 
ia which this passage stands, relates to events under the 
gospel dispensation. The new heavens and new earth, 
mentioned verse 22, all allow, refer to this period ; and 
the extension of the gospel to the gentiles, is repeatedly , 
adverted to in the. course of the chapter. With this in 
view, let us now notice what is said in the passage. It 
is said Ist^ ^^ and. they shall go forth Cfnd look upon the 



THE WOBJD GEHENNA. 185 

carcasses of the men that have transgressed against 
me." The first question is, what men are referred to, 
who transgressed against the Lord? The context 
«hows, they were the unbelieving wicked Jews. The 
next question is, what men are referred to, who should 
'^ go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men who 
had transgressed against the Lord?" The preceding 
verses show, that he refers to the persons who worship 
and obey the Lord. The third question is — ^to what 
place shall the men who worship and obey the Lord, 
" go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men who 
transgressed against the Lord?" The passage itself, 
answers, to the place where " their worm dieth not, and 
the fire is not quenched." But are the carcasses of 
men who have transgressed agamst the Lord m hell, the 
world of woe ? And who goes forth there to look on 
such carc^isses ? Who ever heard of carcasses in hell ? 
And does any rational man think, persons go forth, 
either firom heaven or this world, to look on them there ? 
The idea is as absurd, as it is contrary to common opin- 
ion on the subject. 

What then is meant? I answer, let the reader 
now recollect, what was shown from the Prophet Jere- 
misih above. The Lord was tocmake the city of Jeru- 
salem as Tophet, and notice, he was to make the carcas- 
ses of the wicked Jews meat for the beasts of the earth, 
and they should bury in Tophet until there should be 
no place to bury. Above, Josephus the Jewish historian 
relates, that six hundred thousand of their carcasses were 
carried out of the city and left unburied. The disciples 
of our Lord, or those who worshipped and obeyed 
him, could not go forth into the very streets of Jerusa- 
lem, without looking on the carcasses of those men, 
far the streets were filled with their carcasses. Ajod 
when the disciples lefl the city according to our Lord's 
directions, Math. 24. they must have looked on the 
cwrcwtes <^die men who l^isA tngosgreaspd agiuofyt ib« 

16* 



186 AN INQUIRY INTO 

Lord, if six hundred thousand^ of them lay unburied. 
They could not help looking at them, unless they were 
blindfolded. 

But the passage adds — ^^ and they shall be an abhorring 
unto all flesh, '^ This is said of the men who had 
transgressed against the Lord, mentioned in the former 
part of the passage. The Jews had greatly transgressed 
against the Lord ; and filled up the cup of their iniquity; 
in crucifying the Lord of glory, and persecuting his 
disciples. They pleased not God, and were contrary 
to all men. The former part of the passage fully 
applies to them, l^et us see how this last part applies ; 
and thiey shall be an abhorring unto '^ all flesh, ^^ Who- 
ever will take the trouble, to examine the phrase, " aU 
flesh, ^^ easily found from a concordance, will see, it is 
used to designate the Gentile nations. In the unbe- 
lieving Jewish nation, who survived the destruction of 
their city and Temple by Titus, and in their posterity, 
this part of the passage has been literally fulfilled. 
From that day to this, the Jews have been an abhorring 
to all the gentile nations. They have been a by-word 
and a reproach, among all the nations of the earth. 
The Roman empire, at the time Jerusalem was de- 
stroyed, was considered, the whole world, and is so 
denominated in scripture. Titus' army which besieged 
it, was made up of men from the various nations which 
composed this empire. The carcasses of the Jews, who 
had transgressed against the Lord, was an abhorring 
sight to Titus' army as Josephus testifies. On this view 
of the words, they were literally and awfully fulfilled. 

Let us now return to the passage in question. It is 
evident, our Lord quoted fron? Isaiah the words, and 
three times repeats them — "where their worm dieth 
not, and the fire is not quenched." If we ask — ^whose 
worm shalt not die? whose fire is not quenfched? 
The answer to these questions must be drawn firom 
veree 42, TTie persons who offended those who be- 



THE tro&D GEHEITKA^ 16T' 

lieved in Jesus, is the antecedent to the word their. 
Now, all allow the unbelieving Jews were, not only 
the greatest opposers of Jesus, but hated and persecut- 
ed such as beheved on him. This exactly answers to 
the persons, Isaiah referred to in the words which our 
Lord quotes, and three times repeats. They were the 
men who transgressed against the Lord, or the unbeliev- 
ing wicked Jews. Is it objected — " have you not said, 
our Lord in this passage. was addressing his own disci- 
ples ? We answer yes, but it is obvious enough, he does 
not refer to his own disciples by the word their, when he 
says, " where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not 
quenched." On thte contrary, he is warning them against 
a punishment, others were to suffer which he describes 
by ^^ Gehenna fire, the fire that never shall be quenched; 
where their tvorm dieth not, and the fire is not quencli- 
erf," our Lord told his disciples, it was better, or pro- 
fitable for them, to enter into life, into the kingdom of 
God, maimed in their bodily members than having all 
these to go or be cast into Gehenna or hell fire. And 
what he meant by this, we have seen fi-om the above 
examination of the language of the passage. 

Luke xii. 4, 5. " And I say unto you my friends, 
be not afraid of them that kill the body, and afi;er that 
have no more that they can do ; But I will forewarn 
you whom ye shall fear : fear him, which after he hath 
killed, hath power to cast into hell, (Gehenna)." Here 
our Lord was also addressing his own disciples. It is, 
says Mr. Stuart — " a passage parallel with Math. x. 
28 above, and of the same import." To my remarks 
there I then refer the reader. Some light may be shed 
on both passages, by comparing Matthew and Luke's ac- 
count, of our Lord's discourse. Matthew says — " and 
fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill ^ 
the soul." Luke's statement of the same thing, is — ^** be 
not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have 
no more that they can do." The words of Luke — 



188 AN IN^UpT INTO 

I 
I 

" after that have no more that they can do," expres- 
ses, what Matthew meant by the words, " but are not 
able to kill the soul.'' 

2d, Matthew says — " But rather fear him, which is 
able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Gehenna^." 
To express the same thing, Luke says — " fear him, 
whiqh after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell, 
(Gehenna)." We notice the following agreement and 
difference, between Matthew and Luke in expressing 
the same thing. 1st, Both mention Gehenna, and no 
one can doubt, both mean the same thing by it. 2d, 
What Matthew expresses by the words — " destroy in 
Gehenna,^' Luke expresses by the words — " cast mto 
Gehenna." But Matthew used the same language, 
" cast into Gehenna^^ twice. Chap. v. 29, 30. and in 
Chap, xviii. 9, once. To be destroyed, or to be cast 
into Gehenna then, mean the same thing with the same 
writer, and with both writers. But 3d, Matthew says 
" both soul and body," God is able to destroy in Ge- 
henna. But Luke mentions neither soul or body. The 
words — ^^ After he hath killed," used by Luke, or " af- 
ter he hath killed, hath power to cast into Gehen- 
na," answer to the words of Matthew. They suggest 
the question — after he hath killed what ? If we sup- 
ply the answer to this question from Matthew's account, 
it will be, after he hath killed or destroyed both soul 
and body, he hath power to cast into Gehenna. 4th, 
Matthew says God is able to do all this. Luke says, 
God has power to do it, which is the same thing. But 
it is rather a hasty conclusion, to say, because he is 
able, or hath power to do all this^ it was done, as no- 
ticed on Math. x. 28. above. From this comparison of 
Matthew and Luke's language, I would remark, 

.1st, Luke does not use the distinction made by Mat- 
thew between sold and body. He ot>Iy mentions the 
hody, in the first part of his statement, when be speaks 
of men killii^ it. la the last, when I^ speaks of God'ii 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 189 

killing, he does not mention soul or body. If he thought 
man had an immortal soul, and if by soul Matthew 
meant this, it was a great omission in Luke not to men- 
tion it, if God was to destroy, or kill the immortal soul 
as well as the body in Gehenna. But 

2d, Luke's not using the distinction between soul and 
hody, confirms what was noticed on Math. x. 28, that 
this distinction betiveen soul and body, is a mere He- 
brew idiom. -It simply means, as noticed already, the 
whole body, or the person. That soul is used for the 
person himself we have seen above. But, that it is 
ever used to designate an immortal soul, in distinction 
from the body, and which is to be happy or miserable 
in a disembodied state, I am unable to J5nd in scripture. 
This doctrine is assumed from this text, and Math. x. 
28, but give no countenance to the opinion. Do these 
texts say the soul is immortal ? No. Do they say the 
soul or body are alive in happiness or misery after be- 
ing killed or destroyed in Gehenna ? No. Not the 
slightest intimation of this. 

3d, Both Matthew and Luke say, our Lord enjoined 
on his disciples not to fear men. Why ? Because they 
could only put them to death. This they did, and was 
•'dl they could do. See Acts xii. 1 — 3. The Apostles 
were above the fear of man, in fufilling their mission, as 
the whole book of the Acts shows. , 

4th, Both Matthew and Luke say, our Lord enjoin- 
ed on his disciples to fear God. This is often enjoined 
on Christians in scripture. Why on this occasion, did 
,Jesus enjoin the fear of God on his disciples ? Because 
though man could kill the body, none but God could 
bring upon them, that tremendous punishment predict- 
ed by Jejremiah under the emblem of Gehenna. This 
punishment was a much severer punishment, than that 
mflicted by men, who died without mercy under the law 
of Moses. The like had never been before, nor should 
its like ever be again. In this our Lord's disciples might; 



190 AN IN^UUIT INTO 

be iovolved, for nothing but fidelity to him and obedi- 
ence to his instructions, could save them from it. 

5th, Is it objected — " to destroy both soul and body 
in Gehenna, seems to intimate something more than 
this." But if it^'does, it intimates annihilation, or the 
total destruction of the whole man. But surely no one 
thinks, by destroying both soul and body in Gehenna, 
flKnre can be meant, than-^^' the damnation of hell Ge- 
henna " Math, xxiii. 33, which was threatened the un- 
believing Jews. Did this mean annihilation ; No. Did 
it mean endless punishment in a future state? No, for 
we have shewn from the context, it evidently meant the 
temporal punishment coming on the Jewish nation. 
Who can suppose, our Lord threatened his own disci- 
ples, with a worse punishment than the unbelievbg 
Jews? 

James iii. 6, " and the tongue is a fire, a world of in- 

3uity : so is the tongue among our members, that it de- 
eth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of 
nature ; and it is set on fire of hell (Gehenna)." Dr. 
Campbell thinks, the term Gehenna is here used figu- 
ratively. He observes, it is — "the intention of the 
writer, to draw an illustration of the subject from that 
state of perfect wretchedness," But why forget, that 
before any illustration could be drawn from Gehennoy 
as a place of endless misery, by a Jew or any one else, 
it must first be known as a place of perfect wretch- 
edness. But by Dr. Campbell's own showing, no Jew 
could learn this from the old Testament. TRie term 
Gehenna is not used in the old Testament to designate 
a place of endless punishment. Nor are the words ihC" 
id or hade3 used in this sense, as we have seen above, 
James, could not draw an illustration of any subject 
then, from such a place of future punishment,' nor ought 
this to be asserted, until it is proved he knew of such 
a place, as a place of wretchedness. 
James was a Jew^ and wrote to believbg Jews, 



THE WOJU) Q£H£NNA. 191 

Now, no place to a Jew, conveyed an idea of more per- 
fect wretchedness than the valley of Hinnom. Prefer 
SOT Stuart says — " we cannot wonder, then, at the se- 
vere terras in which the worship of Moloch is every 
where denounced in the scriptures. Nor can we won* 
der that the place itself should have been called Toph- 
et, i. e. ahominatioriy dete$tati(m {from tup to vomit vdth 
loathing, y^ Such a place of perfect wretchedness wa3 
Gehenna, that he and others alledge, it was made a 
source of imagery to designate hell or the world of woe. 
Hence he says — " what could be a more appropriate 
term than this, when we consider the horrid cruelties 
and diabolical rites which had been there performed," 
Which then is most likely the truth ? that James drew 
an illustration from hell in another world, a place un- 
known, or, from the valley of Hinnom, a place well 
k|iown as a place of perfect wretchedness. He is here 
speaking of evils arising from an improper use of the 
tongue ; and to draw an illustration irom the valley oC 
Hinnom, was both natural and proper, as it was the 
most abominable place known to Jews. Surely, it is as 
difEcuIt to conceive, how the tongue could be set on 
fire firom hell in another world, as from the valley- of 
Hinnom in the present world. 

We have now con^dered all the texts in the New 
Testament, which speak of Gehenna punishment. We 
have two or three additional remari» to make, on the 
whole of them. 1st, If these texts, do not refer to the 
same punishment, predicted by Jeremiah to the Jewish 
nation, then our Lord never reminded the Jews, jhat 
such a punishment had been threatened them. If be 
spoke of this punishment at all to them, he must speak 
of it under the imagery of Gehenna, for under thb im- 
agery it was described by the Prophet. It will not be 
pretended, that this punishment had been inflicted on 
the Jewish nation, previous to the days of our Lord. 
Fidelity to the unbelieving Jews, and lovf to his own 



192 • AN INQUIRY INTO 

disciples,' required he should frequently speak of it, for 
this punishment was nigh even at the door. The texts 
which speak of Gehenna punishment, agree to this 
view of the subjects Their contexts, the persons ad- 
dressed about Gehenna, and the phraseology used, are 
all in unison with it. But, it requires the prejudice of 
education, that Gehenna means hell, the world of wot y 
and a great stretch of construction to make them apply- 
to this view of Gehenna. 

2d, It is asserted, Gehenna was such an abominable 
place^ that in process of time, it was made an emblem 
of the endless punishment of the wicked in a iuture state 
But if it was so abominable, as to be made an emblem 
of this, it ought to have been made so in the daya of 
the Old Testament writers ; for it was then the most 
cruel sacrifices were made in the valley of Hinnom, and 
the most horrid abominations were committed. After 
the Babylonian captivity, the Jews were cured of idol- 
atry. But during the days of the prophets, no one ever 
thought, of making Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom, an 
emblem of hell, the world of woe. And yet, during this 
period, the prophet Jeremiah, did make Gehenna an 
emblem of temporal punishment to the Jewish nation, 
ir Gehenna, in the days of its greatest abomination, 
was not made an emblem of the world of woe by inspir- 
ed writers, but of temporal punishment to the Jews, 
why should it be made an embjem of this, when it was 
far less abominable, and that too by uninspired writers ? 
If God did not see fit, to make it an emblem of hell, the 
world of woe, when at its height of abomination, who 
had a right on then: own authority, to make it so after- 
wards ? 

3d, But it must first be proved, that God in the Old 
Testament had revealed such a hell^ such a world of 
woe, before we ought to believe, Gehenna was made 
an emblem of it. I demand then that the texts be pro* 
duced, which teaches such a world of woe. Where is 



THS WOBD 0EHENNA. * 198 

sucii a world described by the name Gehenna, or by 
any other name ? I cannot find it. Mr. Stuart tried to 
find it under the name Sheol, but his attempt to estab- 
!ish this, was a total failure. I appeal then to every 
candid man, how could any Old Testament writer, 
make Gehenna an emblem of a world of woe, when no 
isuch world was known to him ? 

4th, The Jews in after ages, derived their notions 
of punishment in a world of woe from the heathen, and 
to this the term Gehenna was applied. But both the 
place, and the sense given to Gehenna, are of human 
invention. They are alike unknown in the Old Testa- 
ment writings. Nor are they to be found in the New, 
when it is correctly understood. Let the reader judge, 
if the passages which speak of Gehenna, teach any such 
doctrine, for ihey have all been laid before him. 

Such are all the texts in which the word Gehenna 
is used by the New Testament writers, and such are 
the remarks which have occurred to me in my exam- 
ination of them. According to every just rule of Scrip- 
ture interpretation I am acquainted with, I do not see 
how I could have interpreted them differently. Indeed, 
to me it is surprising, how the doctrine of eternal mis- 
ery was ever founded on any of the texts which speak 
of Gehenna or hell. If I am correct, it also affords a 
striking example, how far we may be misled, in a prop- 
er understanding of the Scriptures, by attaching to a 
single word a sense different from that given it by the 
inspired writers. How far I am correct, my readers 
must judge for themselves. I hope they will, on the 
one hand, guard against receiving my error if it be one, 
and on the other, beware of rejecting my view, if tme, 
fix)m prejudices of education. Under the influence 
of these priBJudices, I began to examine this subject, 
and have been obliged to relinquish my former views of 
Gehenna, from the force of the evidence I have already 
stated^ and which I have yet to adduce on this subject. 

17 



194 AN INQUIRY INTO 

If my views of Gehenna are found correct, it is also t 
striking proof, how far we may be misled, in a proper 
understanding of the New Testament, from our inat- 
tention to the Old. If the word Gehenna in the New, 
is used in a sunilar sense as in the Old Testament^ all 
the false views we have had of the texts in which it 
occurs in the former, have arisen from our mattentioo 
to its usage in the latter. 

Before closing this section, it is proper to notice any 
objections which have occurred against the sense givea 
to Gehenna, in the passages we have been consideriii^. 
iflt. One of the most popular objections likely to be 
urged, is, that the sense I have given to Gehenna 18 
very contrary to the long established ecclesiastical use 
of this word. This is frankly admitted ; but certainly 
this is no certain evidence that my views are incorrect. 
In the present case, I have done no more than what is 
doi^ by Presbyterians, Hopkinsians, Congregationalists, 
Baptists, Methodists, yea, by all sects in religion. Thai 
the ecclesiastical use of some words is very different from 
the Scripture usage of them, few will deny. That they 
are different, and also how little we ought to regard the 
ecclesiastical use of words when contrary to Scripture 
usage of them, we here quote the authority of Th, 
Campbell. He says, p. 416. of his disertations, — "ec- 
clesiastical use is no security that the word, though 
it be understood, conveys to us the same idea which the 
ordinal term did to those to whom the gospels were 
first promulgated. In a former dissertation, the fullest 
evidence has been given, that in regard to several 
worlds, the meaning which has been long established by 
ecclesiastic use, is very different from that which they 
^vein the writings of the New Testament." 

It is easily seen from this quotation, and more fully 
4rom the other dissertation to which he refers, that he dia 
H€^-seruple to disclaim the ecclesiastical use of vfords, 
if ^i me did not agree with New Testament usage. 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 196 

We have examined the Scripture usage of the words 
Sheol, Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna, and if ecclesiasti- 
cal usage considers any of these words to mean a place 
of endless misery, we must say that it is not supported 
by the Bible. But of this our readers must judge. If it 
can be proved, that we have erred in the sense we have 
given to Gehenna or those other words, we shall be glad 
to see the error exposed. 

2d, Another* objection closely connected with the 
former, is, that my views of Gehenna are contrary to 
the opinions of almost all the learned in the present 
day ; in ages past of the Christian Church ; and to its 
sense in the Apocrypha and Jewish Targums. This may 
be true, yet my view of Gehenna be the correct and Scrip- 
tural one notwithstanding. Dr. Campbell, says, p. 91. of 
his dissertations, — "the opinion of Grotius and some 
learned Rabbis, unsupported by either argument or ex- 
ample, nay, in manifest contradiction to both, is here 
of no weight. Scriptural usage alone must decide the 
qyestion. These commentators (with all deference to 
their erudition and abilities be it spoken) being compar- 
atively modern, cannot be considered as ultimate judges 
in a question depending entirely on an ancient use, 
whereof all the evidences that were remaining in their 
time, remain still, and are as open to our examination, 
as they were to theirs. In other points where there 
thay happen to be in Scripture an allusion to customs 
or ceremonies retained by the Jews, but unknown to 
us, the case is diiSerent. But nothing of this kind is 
pretended here." We have attempted to decide the 
question, what is the meaning of the term Gehenna, by 
an appeal to the Scripture usage, of this word, and we 
must say it is our present opinion, that it is not once 
used either in the Old or New Testament, to express a 
place of endless misery for the wicked. 

We conclude this, section with two brief quotations 
from Mr. Stuart,' in his letters to Mr. (now Dr.) Chan 



196 AN INQUIRY INTO 

ning, which we wish were engraven on every man's 
heart, never to be effaced. In page 14. he says, — '^ the 
claims of the Bible to be authoritative being once ad- 
mitted, the simple question in respect to it, is, what does 
it teach in regard to any particular passage ; what idea 
did the original writer mean to convey ? When this, 
is ascertained by the legitimate rules of interpreta- 
tion, it is authoritative. This is orthodoxy in the high- 
est and best sense of the word ; and every thing which 
is opposed to it, which modifies it, which fritters its mea- 
ning away, is heterodoooy, is heresy ; to whatever name 
or party it is attached." He adds, p. 109 — " after all, 
it is a principle, by which, if I have any knowledge of 
my own heart, I desire forever to be guided, to ' call no 
man master, on earth.' I would place the decision of 
Scripture, fairly made out, immeasurably above all 
human opinions. I regard the one as the decision of 
an unerring God ; the other as the opinions of fallibh 
men." 



SECTION IV. 



ADDITIONAL FACTS STATED, PROVING, THAT GEHENNA 
WAS NOT USED BY THE SACRED WRITERS TO EX- 
PRESS A PLACE OF ENDLESS MISERY. 

The facts which have been stated in section 2d, are 
certainly very singular, if it be true, that Gehenna in 
the New Testament signifies a place of endless misery 
for the wicked. Those I am now to adduce, are to me 
also strange, upon such a view of this subject. Some 
of them have been shghtly hinted at in the course of 
our remarks, but deserve a more distinct statement. 

1st, If Gehenna means a place of endless misery for 



i 



TBS WOBB OSHElWA. I9t 

fkt Vdckti^ St is a fact that the apostles never preached 
Hy either to Jews or Gentiks. The history of the 
A<5ts of the Apostles, contains an account of their 
Jrtieachitig for thirty years, but not once, is the subject 
cff Gehenna torments, mentioned by them. They were 
commanded to preach the Gospel to every creature, 
and they did so, but to no creature under heaven, did 
they ever preach this doctrine. No living being did 
they ever threaten with such a punishment. They 
addressed the worst of characters, but to none of them 
did they say " how can ye escape the damnation of Ge- 
henna, hell ?" They did threaten men sometimes with 
punishment, but never with eternal punishment in hell. 
Saul said to Elymas, the sorcerer — " O ! full of all 
Bubtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou 
enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to per- 
vert the right ways of the Lord?" But does he 
threaten this man with the damnation of hell? No; 
he says, " and now behold, the hand of the Lord is 
upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun 
for a season." Acts xiii. 10, 11. In the same chap- 
ter, verses 40, 41. he says, "beware, therefore, lest 
that come upon you which is spoken of in the proph- 
ets. Behold ye despisers, and wonder and perish." 
In this last text the word perish occurs, and perhaps 
some may think that eternal punishment is included in 
it. But it should be observed, that Paul was here ad- 
dressing himself to Jews, and concerning them our 
Lord had said — " except ye repent, ye shall all like- 
wise perish," referring to the temporal destruction 
which was coming on the Jewish nation. I then 
ask, how this fact is to be rationally accounted for, if 
the apostles believed hell to be a place of endless mis- " 
ery ? Can any man suppose they believed this, yet in 
the course of thirty years' preaching, never mentioned 
it to their hearers ? What would we say of a man in 
these days, who should preach thirty years, yet never 

17* 



198 AN INQUIRY INTO 

say a word about hell to those whom he addressed ? 
Would we not say he was a Universalist ? He would 
be an outlaw from orthodoxy. If my veracity in this 
statement is doubted by any persons, let them read the 
book of the Acts of the apostles. In the whole of it, 
whether they preached to Jews or Gentiles, you will 
find they are all alike silent on the subject of hell tor- 
ments. If they believed such a doctrine, let others 
account for it, why they never preached it. If preach- 
ers now took the apostles as their models, we should 
hear no more about hell from thelm. We would then, 
respectfully ask, from what source did preachers learn 
that they should preach Gehenna or hell torments to 
us Gentiles ? To what chapter or verse, in any book 
of the New Testament, can they refer us, where an in- 
spired apostle ever did so ? Let every one who preach- 
es this doctrine, consider, if he did not learn it irom his 
catechism, when a child ; from books he has read ; 
and from the preaching he has heard since he became 
a man, and not from his Bible ? Let him also consider 
before he condemns my view, whether he has ever given 
this subject a thorough and impartial examination. 
We are all too prone to receive things in religion on 
such kind of authority, and too ready to condemn opin- 
ions contrary to our own, before we have duly consid- 
ered the evidence brought in support of them. 

To the above it may be objected^ — " Gehenna was a 
Jewish figurative mode of speaking of future eternal 
punishment, and had it been used by the apostles in 
preaching to the Gentiles, they could not have been 
understood ; for the Gentiles knew nothing about Ge- 
henna, as a place of future punishment." To this I 
reply. 

1st, This objection would have some force, if it was 
found, that the apostles ever said to the wicked Gen- 
tiles, *^ how can ye escape the damnation of Hades, or 
Tartarus." Had they spoke thus, we might suppose, that 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 199 

this was the reason they avoided the use of the term 
Gehenna. But do we find this to be the true state of the 
case ? We certainly do not. No such conclusion then 
can be drawn, that the apostles said nothing to the Gen- 
tiles concerning Gehenna, because it was a Jewish fig- 
ure which they could not understand. But, 

2d, Admitting the term Gehenna, was a mode of 
speaking of eternal misery the Gentiles did not under- 
stand, they could have explained it to them, as they 
have done other things of seemingly less importance. 
Let any one read John's gospel, and he will see that 
he explams Jewish names, and customs ; some exam- 
ples of which we have given in another place. But, 

3d, The above objection takes it for granted, that 
the Gentiles were unacquainted with the term Gehenna. 
But is there not as good reason to think, that the hea- 
tlien in their intercourse with the Jews, should imbibe 
their notions of Gehenna, as that the Jews should im- 
bide the heathen notions concerning Hades or Tartarus. 
Their mutual intercourse would produce a mutual inr 
terchange of opinions. This being the case, if the 
spirit of God recognized either the Jewish notions of 
Gehenna, or the Pagan notions of Hades, as truth, we 
might expect that the apostles would have preached 
the doctrine to both Jews and Gentiles. Had both 
been recognized, we might expect Hades and Gehenna 
to be used indiscriminately by the apostles, in speaking 
of future eternal misery. But this was not done, if we 
may judge of their preaching firom what is contained in 
the New Testament. If they believed both to be true 
they would have spoken at least of Gehenna to Jews, 
and of Hades to Gentiles, as a place of eternal punish- 
ment in a future state. 

4th, But this objection takes it for granted, the Jews 
in our Lord's day, did use the term Gehenna to signify 
a place of endless misery, and that this was its exclusive 
sense. That this could not be its exclusive sense 



5MiO AK IN^tJl^Y INTO 

Pre have proved ; for in reading the Old TestameW 
Scriptures, tliej^ could not understand it so; or, if they 
did, they must have perverted them to an elxtent I am 
utowillitig to believe, even of the Jews. The objected 
must then prove, that the Jews in our Lord's day, did 
use the term Gehenna, exclusively to express a place 
of endless misery. The apostles did preach to the 
JiBWs as well as the Gentiles, but they did not even 
name it to them. Will any mati affirm, then, that the 
apostles of our Lord understood him to mean, by Ge- 
hettna a place of endless misery, and yet never preached 
it, to either Jews or Gentiles, in the whole Course of 
their ministry ? Whatever excuse we may make fot 
them, in regard to the Gentiles not understanding the 
term Gehenna, none can be made foi; them on this 
glx)und respecting the Jews. 

2d, Another fad is, that the salvation revealed by ike 
gospel, is never spoJcen of as a salvation from hell or 
endless miseiy. No such salvation was ever promised 
of predicted in the Old Testament, and no such salva- 
tion was ever preached by Christ or his apostleL Our 
Lord received the name Jesus, because he should ^ave 
his people from their sins. But I do not find he receiv- 
ed this name or any other, because he should save 
them from hell. Our Lord and his apostles, in preach- 
ing, proposed by it to turn men from darkness to light ; 
from the power of satan unto God ; from idols to serve 
the living God ; from the course of this world ; and from 
all sin to holiness ; but where do we ever read of their 
saving them from hell ? No such salvation was preach- 
ed by our Lord. In all the texts where he fepeaks of 
hell, he was not preaching the gospel, but addressing 
the Jews about the temporal calamities coming on them 
to a people. In no instance did he ever exhort men 
to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, because they 
were exposed to hell torments in a future state. So 
Jar from this, in nine instances out of eleven, where 



THE WOBD GEHENNA. 201 

Grehenna is used by him, be was addressing his diseiples. 
It is of no use to observe, that his apostles never made 
use of the punishment of hell to induce men to repent- 
ance, for they do not once name it in all their writings. 
James is the only exception, who mentions hell once, 
and that, only in a figurative sense. Nothing is said in 
our Lord's commission to his apostles about hell, and 
as little is said of it by them in their execution of it. 
To Jew and Gentile, bond and firee, they are all silent 
about it. It is never mentioned by them to any persons, 
on any occasion, or in any connection, or on any subject. 
This silence of the apostles respecting hell, could not 
be because the people in those days were all so very 
good, that they did not need to be saved fix)m hell. 
No ; the whole world lay in wickedness around them, 
yet not a word is said about the torments of hell to alarm 
their fears, and to turn them firom sin to God. No 
calculations were then made, as in our day, of the num- 
ber who were daily and hourly going down to hell to 
suffer eternal misery. No ; nor was such a variety of 
schemes adopted by the apostles, to raise funds to save 
men firom hell. As they expressed no alarms about the 
vast crowds going to hell, so we do not find them ex- 
pressing their joy because any were saved fi*om it. They 
were deeply grieved to see men living in sin, and their 
spirit was stirred within them to see whole cities given 
to* idolatry; but they never assert that all such were 
on the road to hell. They had great joy to see men 
walking in the truth, and often congratulated them on 
account of their being saved from their former course . 
of life, but not a syllable escapes them, that such per- 
sons had been saved from endless misery. You search 
the Scriptures in vain, to find a single instance, where 
the apostles make any attempt to work on the fears 
and feelings of men by giving terrific descriptions of 
hell, or the -horrors and bowlings of the damned. As 
they never held up the torments of hell to make men 



202 AN INQ,mRT INTO 

Christians, so vfe never find them using it as an arga- 
rnent to induce Christians to love and to good work*. 
The latter are often reminded that they formerly werfe 
idolaters, working all uncleanness with greediness, to 
induce them to holiness ; but where do we find a word 
said of their being saved from hell, as any inducement 
to it ? — In view of these things, how are we to ac- 
count for them, if they believed hell to be a place of 
eternal torment for the wicked ? Is it possible they 
believed this, yet preserved such a dead silence on the 
subject ? This silence is an indisputable fact. To ac- 
count for it, is above my comprehension. . 

Perhaps it may be said, — though noiie are said to 
be saved from hell, yet they are said to be delivered 
from the wrath to come, and to be saved from wratb 
through Jesus. All this is true*; but it is nowhere 
said, that this wrath to come was in a future state, or 
of eternal duration, which is the point to be proved to 
be conclusive on this subject. I think I can show that 
the expression, " wrath to come," does not refer to a 
future state. To do it here, would be too great a di- 
gression from our present subject. 

3d, Supposing that Gehenna is a place of endlesi 
misery, who can vindicate the character of our Lord of 
his apostle* s, for faithfulness, compassion, or zeal ? It is 
certain our Ijord was faithful to him who appointed 
him. The apostles were also faithful, in declaring the 
whole counsel of God. But can all this be true, if 
they knew that this was a place of eternal misery, and 
that all the world stood exposed to it, yet said nothing 
to them about it ? It is true, the Savior mentions Ge- 
henna nine times to his disciples, and twice to the un- 
bfelieving Jews. But he nor his apostles, never use the 
word in speaking to the Gentiles. Now, I ask, is this 
like being faithful ? Is this being half so faithful as 
rtiost preachers are in our day ? We think every can- 
did man must say no ; it is rather being very unfaith* 



Tl^fi WORD GSHEJ^NA. 203 

fill, if they believed this doctrine as it is commonly re- 
ceived among us. Let it then be accounted for, how 
preaching hell as a place of endless misery now, is so 
much a duty, since it was not done by the apostles, 
nor even by our Lord himself. The fidelity of preach- 
y ers in these days, both to God and the souls of men, 
in preaching the doctrine of endless misery in hell, far 
exceeds that of the apostles or of Christ, the Savior. 
BtU how is their compassion to the souls of men to be 
vindicated^ if by hell is meant a place of endless mis- 
ery? The case stands thus. The Savior, it is thought, 
knew hell to be a place of endless torment, but we havQ 
seen how he acted ? He had compassion on the 
multitude, when they needed to be fed, and wrought 
a miracle to supply their wants. The compassion of 
his heart made him weep over Jerusalem, in anticipat- 
ing the temporal calamities coming upon its inhabitants, 
and faithfully to warn them of their danger. In ref- 
erence to those temporal calamities, he once said to the 
unbelieving Jews, — " how can ye escape the damna- 
tion of hell ?" In reference to the same calamities, he 
uses the word hell in addressmg his disciples. But he 
sheds no tears, he gives no warnings, he works no 
miracles to save, when it is said he knew hell to be d, 
place of endless misery to all the wicked. But can 
any man think so of the Son of God, the Savior of the 
world ? I ask ; can any man believe, that he whose 
heart was wrung with anguish, at foreseeing temporal 
evils to be suffered by men, and who could shed tears 
at the grave of Lazarus, was so devoid of all compas- 
sion, as never to warn men of endless misery in helll 
But mpposing we should admit, that in all the placesi 
where our Lord mentioniS hell, such a place of misery 
is meant. In this case, our Lord indeed had a littla 
compassion for the Jews. But neither he, nor his aposr 
ties, had any for the Gentiles. The apostles did shed 
,te9ra, but not a tear falls fron^ their eyefs, 09 a9CODnt of 



204 AN INQUIRY INTO 

men's being m danger of hell torments. On this sub- 
ject their bowels of compassion were entirely shut up, 
for they say not a word about hell to any man. — ^Either 
then we mast allow these men to be devoid of compas- 
sion, or admit that they did not know that hell was a 
place of eternal torment for the wicked. II is a plain 
case, that preachers in our day far exceed the Lord and 
his apostles in compassion for the souls of men. How 
solemnly, and seriously, and frequently, do we hear 
preachers warn men of hell torments? What deep 
compassion they pretend to /eel for the multitudes of 
poor souls on the brink of hell, and going down to suffer 
its torments forever. In what loud and frightful tones, 
do we hear them describe the horrors of this place? 
Their compassionate hearts they describe as bleeding, 
because men will thus rush down to hell in crowds. 
But where do we find such things in our Lord's, or in 
his apostle's preaching ? Were they to return to the 
earth, and preach just as they did, every pulpit would 
be shut against them, and they represented as unfaithful 
and unfeeling men. But how is their zeal for the 
glory of Gody and the salvation of men, to be vindi- 
cated^ if they knew hell to be a place of endless misery 7 
Our Lord said, " the zeal of thine house hath eaten me 
up." But surely, it was not spent in preaching, and 
warning men against endless misery in hell. The apos- 
tles had also great zeal, and zeal according to knowl- 
edge, but they never spent any of it in preaching such 
a doctrine. The topic of hell torments, on which so 
much zeal is spent in the present day, is one which they 
never introduced to their hearers. This topic, hardly 
forgotten in a single discourse, and so powerful in in- 
ducing all classes of society to contribute money, seems 
to have been unknown in the days of the apostles. This 
theme, so effectual in rousing the sleeping energies of 
mankind, and of exhausting human ingenuity in devis- 
ing means to save them from hell, was either unknown 



TH£ WORD 6£H£NNA. 205 

to them, or they did not know how to avail themselves 
of it. It was never used by them to procure themselves 
a morsel of bread, or in any way to do good to others. 
The most profound silence is maintained by the apostles 
on this subject. 

I do not blame the zeal of any in the present day, 
in urging the doctrine of hell torments on mankind. If 
the doctrine be true, I contend that their zeal is not ar- 
dent enpugh. So far iGrom condemning the greatest zeal 
which can be manifested, I have some doubts, if a great 
many of such persons beheve their own doctrine. If 
they did, how could they live in such wealth and splen- 
dor, yet do so little to save men from hell torments ? 
I have serious doubts, if many of the preachers, most 
active and zealous in rousing the public to give money 
to save the heathen jfrom hell, believe this doctrine. If 
they did believe it, would they live at home in compar- 
ative ease and sffluence, and send raw, inexperienced 
youths abroad, to encounter the difficulties and dangers 
of such a work ? No ; they would rush into the hottest 
place of the battle, and suffer every privation ii\ such a 
conflict. One thing is certain, that in saving others from 
hell, they seem determined to do it with as little self- 
denial and personal risk as possible. How often does 
it happen, that all the zeal for the doctrine of hell tor- 
ments evapo]:ates in the pulpit, and nothing more is heard 
of it until the preacher returns to it again. In the com- 
mon intercourse of life, he speaks and acts to the same 
people, as if all his threatenings from the pulpit, of eter- 
nal torment in hell, were not true. Yea, some of the 
very persons whom he threatens with the torments of 
hell, are his most intimate companions through the week. 
He visits in their families, he feasts at their table, and 
his salary is chiefly paid by them ; but not a word es- 
capes him, perhaps the whole week, in warning them of 
their danger in being every moment exposed to endless 
misery. Can such a man be said, truly to believe this 

18 



206 AN INdUIRT INTO 

doctrine ? We must be allowed to doubt it, so long zs 
such unfaithfiibiess is so apparent. I do not blame any 
for great zeal, if this doctrine be true. No ; I only wish 
some one would account for it, if be can, why the 
apostles never mentioned hell as a place of toimenty nor 
availed themselves of this doctrine, to stimulate their 
own zeal, or rouse that of others, in attempting to save 
men from such a punishment. I wish it to be account- 
ed for, why this topic was never urged on Christians to 
induce liberality, to assist in saving the heathen from 
hell, or on the heathen to induce them to turn from their 
idols to the living God. I wish it to be accounted for, 
if the apostles knew of the doctrine of hell torments, 
why they forgot to mention it either to Jews or to Gen* 
tiles. Either they did not believe the doctrine, or, if 
they did, how is their fidelity, compassion, and seal to 
be defended? Who would undertake to defend the 
fidelity, compassion, and zeal of any preacher in onr day, 
who, if this doctrine was believed by him, should never 
mention Gehenna as a place of endless misery for all 
who died in ignorance and unbelief concerning the Sa- 
vior ? Instead of defending him, all sects, Herod and 
Pilate like, would be made friends to put such a preacher 
down by every means in their power. 

4th, The Old Testament is often quoted in the New^ 
but it is an indisputable fact, that though quoted by 
our Lord- when speaking about hell or Gehenna, it is 
not quoted to show thatliell was a place of etemtdnds^ 
erifybut in reference to temporal punishment. Indeed, 
it was impossible for our Lord or his apostles to quote 
the Old Testament, to prove that hell was such a place 
of misery ; for it is acknowledged by Dr. Campbell and 
others, that in this sense hell does not occur there. 
They could not make a quotation from it^ for it dU not 
afford them any thing to quote. Well, permit me to 
ask, why our Lord did quote the Old Testament, and 
quoted it in the very texts in which hell or Gehi^a is 



THE WORD OEHEKNA. 207 

Spoken of? In Mark ix. considered above, our Lord 
expressly quotes a passage from Isaiah, when speaking 
concerning hell to his disciples. In other places he 
seems to allude to others. Had our Lord then meant 
to use Gehenna in a different sense from that in the Old 
Testament, was it not calculated to mislead his hear- 
ers thus to quote it ? Is it rational to suppose, that 
our Lord quoted texts from the Old Testament, which 
speak of a temporal punishment, when he intended that 
what he said about Gehenna or hell should be under- 
stood of eternal punishment ? I think this would be 
imputing to our Ix>rd a want of correctness of judgment, 
and even of common propriety, which we seldom have 
occasion to impute to our fellow men. The man would 
be looked on as insane, or something worse, who in the 
present day, if he intended to prove the doctrine of hell 
torments, should quote fix)m the Old Testament the 
passage about the three children thrown into the fiery 
furnace. But this is just what our Lord did, if (jehen- 
na in the New Testament means a place of eternal mis- 
ery. See on Math, xxiii. 33. and Mark ix. 42. oonsid^ 
ered in the preceding section. 

5th, If there he a place of endless misery for the 
wickedy another remarkable fact is, that the Hebrew 
Greek, and English languages, originally had no name 
for this place 1 We have seen from Dr. Campbell, 
that Gehenna does not occur in this sense in the Old 
Testament. Let us also see what he says about our 
English word helL Speaking of Hades, in his 6th dis- 
sertation, he says :— " To this the word hell in its prim- 
itive signification perfectly corresponded. For, at first it 
denoted only what was secret or concealed. This word 
is found with little variation of form, and precisely in 
the same meanitig, in all the Teutonic dialects. But 
though our word hell in its original si^ification, was 
more adapted to express the sense of Hades than of 
Gehenna, it is not so now. When we speak as Chris« 



208 AN INQUIRY INTO ' 

tians, we always express by it, the place of the punish- 
ment of the wicked after the general judgment, as 
opposed to heaven, the place of the reward of the 
righteous." — It is very evident from this, that the word 
hell did not originally signify a place of endless misery. 
In confirmation of what Dr. Campbell says, I shall quote 
the following from Parkhurst on the word Hades. He 
says, — " our English or rather Saxon word hell, in its 
original signification, (though it is now understood in a 
more limited seiise) exactly answers to the word Hch 
des, and denotes a concealed or unseen place ; and this 
sense of the word is still retained in the eastern, and 
especially in the western counties of England ; to hele 
over a thing is to cover it." — The correctness of these 
statements are above suspicion ; for, the fidelity of these 
men as writers, has led them to say things at variance 
with their professed creed as Christians. It is very evi- 
dent, if they are to be believed, that our EngUsh word 
hell, did not originally signify a place of endless misery 
for the wicked, but like Hades or Sheol, signified the 
unseen or concealed place ; and that it has this meaning 
in some of the counties in England to this day. It is 
then a very plain case, that for this place of endless 
misery the Hebrew, Greek, and English languages did 
not originally furnish a name. We have then to ask, 
had the inspired writers any idea of such a place of 
misery ? If they had, it is evident they wanted a name 
to express it to others. If they have not expressed it 
by any word to others, how does any man know that 
they entertained such an idea ? We have seen persons 
use words to which they had no distinct ideas. And 
we have alsojseen persons having ideas, which they 
could not very easily express in appropriate language to 
others. But we believe it is a singular case, that the 
Bible is said to reveal a place of endless misery, yet the 
inspired writers had no name for it. It is surely then 
a very proper question to be asked, who changed the 



THEl word GEHENNA. 209 

words. Gehenna and hell from their origmal signification, 
to mean a place of ea^dless nufiery ? We shall see in 
the next section that the writers of the Targums and 
the- Apocrypha, are appealed to, that this change was 
gvadudly produced, and finally Gehenna was used ex- 
ehisively to mean such a place of misery. Who gave 
this new sense to the word hell, or whether its change 
of sense was gradual or sudden, I can afiTord no infor- 
mation. It is enough for us to know, that this was not 
its original signification ; and this fact is attested by Dr. 
Campbell, Parkhurst and others, all firm believers in the 
doctrine of hell torments. 

After these statements fix)m such eminent critics, 
relative to Gehenna and our English word heUy it is 
very natural to put something like the following ques- 
tions. 1st, Were these words changed from their orig- 
inal signification by divine authority, or was it on tne 
authority of men ? None of the above authors insin- 
uate, that such a change in the meaning of these words 
was made by any of the inspired writers, or by God's 
authority. It has never been noticed in the course of 
our reading, that any one ventured to prove this or 
even asserted it. As to the word Gehenna, we have 
seen that Dr. Campbell says it came gradually to be 
used in, this sense and at length came to be confined to 
it. 2d, By whom, and at what period of time, did this 
change in the sense of these two words take place ? 
Here we are left to conjecture ; for neither Dr. Camp- 
bell, nor any other writer, of which we have any knowl- 
edge, gives us any information about this. That a change 
in the sense of these two words has taken place, is 
certain, but when, or where, or by whom it was done, 
no information is afforded us. 3d, By what name was 
this place of endless misery called, befcMre the Jews 
called it by the name Gehenna ? And what was its 
qflupe in the English, or rather Saxon language, before 
tbiEt word heU was changed fromits. original signification 

18* 



210 AS IN^UIRT INTO 

and applied to it ? Or was it without a name, before 
these words were altered in sense to suit it ? 4tb, If it 
had a name beford Gehenna and hell were changed in 
sense, and applied to it, why was it laid aside ? And 
what were the reasons which induced men to make 
such an alteration on their own authority? Why were 
they not content, to speak of this place as the Scrip- 
tures teach, if indeed they do reveal such a place of 
endless misery ? 5th, If Gehenna and hell have under- 
gone such a change of sense, on mere human authority, 
ought we not to change them again to their originiEd 
signification, on the same authority ? — Such are a few 
01 the questicMis which may be put, relative to the 
change in the sense of these two words. We leave 
our readers to determine how they are to be answered. 
The last is easily answered, but all the others, we think 
must remain unanswered. 

6th, Another fact, deserving our consideration, is, 
that Christians, when they speak of hell, adopt the 
phraseology used about Sheol and Hades, rather than 
Gehenna, though it is contended Gehenna is the toard 
which siffiifes the place of endless misery. I shall 
explain what I mean. - For example, it is evident from 
an inspection of the passages, in which She6l, Hades 
and Gehenna occur, that Gehenna, for depth, is never 
contrasted with heaven for height, like Sheol and Hades. 
Nor, do we read of persons going down to Gehenna, 
of the depths of Gehenna, or of the lowest Gehenna. 
Neither do we read of the gates of Gehenna, nor of the 
pains of Gehenna. All these things are said of Sheol 
and Hades, as we have seen in a former part of this 
Inquiry. Besides, no representations are given of Ge- 
henna, as of Sheol and Hades, that all the dead, or, 
even the wicked are there. No persons are ever rep- 
resented as alive in Gehenna, as speaking out of Gehen- 
na, or as tormented in its flames. It is never like Sh«ol 
and Hades, represented as a dark, concealed place. 



THE WOED GEHENNA. 211 

under the earth. No: it is represented as on a level, 
with the persons addressed concerning it. All these, 
and other modes of speaking, are used about Sheol and 
Hades, but never in speaking of Gehenna ; and show 
a remarkable difference in the Scripture representations 
of the two places. Such a marked, uniform difference 
must strike every man's mind with great force, who 
takes the trouble to examine this subject. In all the 
twelve places, in which Gehenna occurs in the New 
Testament, we have seen, that what I have stated is 
stricly correct. In them we read of the damnation of 
Gehenna or hell : persons are there said to be in danger 
of it ; they are threatened with going into it, or bemg 
cast into it ; but do we ever read of any person's being 
alive in it, and lifting up his- eyes in the torments of 
this place ? Now, comparing all these different forms of 
speech, about Sheol and Hades, with those of Gehen- 
na, the difference is not only manifest, but very great. 
Let us now compare these statements with the way 
in which Christians speak about hell, or the place of 
future punishment. It is evident, that they seldom, 
use the language employed in the Bible, about Gehen- 
na, but that used in speaking of Sheol and Hades. 
Thus, for example, when a preacher describes hell to 
his hearers, and threatens the wicked with the punish* 
ment of it, he speaks of it as a deep place, as the low- 
est hell, and as a place to which they are going down ; 
and speaks of some already there, lifting up their eyes 
in its torments. Permit me then to ask, why this is 
done ? for what reason is the Scripture language about 
Gehenna laid aside, and that of Sheol and Hades sub- 
stituted in its place ; when it is allowed on all sides^ 
that Sheol or Hades does not mean a place of endless 
misery? It must be confessed, that this is, at least, 
bundling the word of God ignorantly, if not deceitfully ; 
and under the mask of Scripture phraseology, imposing 
oo the ignorance and credulity of mankind. If such 



212 AN IN^UIRT INTO 

persons, will have Gehenna to be the place of endless 
misery, let them use the language of Scriptiue about it, 
and not use the language, allowed to have no reference 
to such a subject. We cannot help thinkings that the 
reason of this change of phraseology is j6rom necessity. 
It would be contrary to fact^ and even common beW, 
to speak to people of hell, in the language used about 
Gehenna. To tell them that their whole body shook} 
be cast into hell would not da A case of this kiod 
was never known. The change of the language, fiom 
Gehenna to that of Sheol and Hades,, is therefore bq^ 
cessary, to be in unison with the common belief <»i this 
subject. If men were obliged to confine themselves to 
the language used in Scripture about Gehenna,^ wh^i 
they speak of (hell, it would probably lead them to see, 
that all was not c(»rrectly understood respecting it. I 
may add here, that this change of language,^ is not tt- 
together in agreement with die popular ideas enter*^ 
tained of hell. The parable of the rich man and 
Lazarus, is not in unison with common belief. No 
man believes that the body is tormented^ at least, 
till after the resurrection of the dead ; but ho^ oltsa 
do preachers represent the body after death as in hell, 
lifting up its eyes there, and as tormented in its flames ? 
But fondness for a popular sentiment, often blinds our 
eyes to the contradictions and absurdity of our language 
in speaking about it. 

7th, Another fact, deserving some notice m, that 
the punishment of Qehenna, is never once spoken 
of as a punishment for the spirit, separate Jrom the 
body in an intermediate state^ nor as a punishmeni fn' 
both body and spirit, after the resurrection of tbet dmd. 
As to the first part of this statement, let the texts in 
which Gehenna occurs, be ever so rigidly examined, 
they do not affi>rd a particle of evidence, that (jeheniia 
is an intermediate place of punishment £» the spirit 
after the death of the body. Hie text> and ym be** 



TH£ WORD GEHENNA. 213 

lieve the only text, quoted to prove this intermediate 
place of punishment, is, the parable of the rich man 
and Lazarus. But supposing this account to be liter- . 
ally understood, it should be remembered, that the rich 
man was not in Gehenna,- but in Hades. Admitting 
then, that Hades is an intermediate place of punishment 
for the separate spirit, Gehenna roust be given up as 
such a place. But ask any C(ymmon Christian^ who 
believes in the doctrine of eternal misery, if he thinks 
punishment before and after the resurrection, are in 
two different places ; and he would stare at you as an 
heretic. He has always behoved, as taught by his 
parents y his catechism, and his sect, that there is only 
one hell for all the wicked. It is high time that com- 
mon Christians, in distinction from learned Christians, 
should be told that this is very far from being the true 
state of the case ; as they would soon see, if the learnr 
ed only spoke their minds freely on this subject. Dr. 
Campbell, has dared to speak of Gehenna and Hades 
as two places of punishment for the wicked, shd it is 
somewhat surprising, that orthodox Christians have not 
before now, denounced him as an heretic* 

But the punishment of hell or Gehenna, says Dr. 
Campbell and others, comes after the judgment, for 
Hades is to be destroyed. But let the texts which 
speak of Gehenna, be , again examined, and as little is 
said about its being a place of punishment after the 
resurrection, as'^before it. No; we never find it once 
mentioned, in connection with the resurrection of the 
dead ; but, always in connection with the temporal 
miseries coming on the Jews. Without making my- 
self liable to the charge of arrogance, I think I may 
challeiige the whole world to produce a single text, 
which speaks of Gehenna, either as an intermediate 

* Profewor stuart admits, Sheol or Hades, U not the place of endUss 
niiii«hinent, but like Dr. CampbeU contends for Gehenna being this place. 
He hm two helh, IHm many others. 



314 AN INQUIRY INTO 

place of punishment for the spirit, or for both body and 
spirit after the resurrection of the dead. All the pas- 
sages, we think, have been shown to have a totally 
dinerent meaning, what has led people into such mis- 
taken ideas on this subject, is, their confounding She- 
bl. Hades, and Gehenna together, as one place, and 
supposing that the word hell, by which all these words 
are translated, means the place of endless punishment 
for the wicked. The endless duration of this punish 
ment has been believed from Mark ix. 43, 44. consi- 
dered above, and from a few more passages, in which 
the word everlasting is used and applied to punishment. 

It has been shown, from a consideration of the pas^ 
sages which speak of Gehenna, that it referred to the 
punishment of the Jews, and we think we have proved 
that this punishment was called an everlasting punish- 
ment. But where do we ever read of an everlasting 
punishment in hell, either in an intermediate state, or 
after the resurrection^? Let something like proof of 
this be produced. It is very true, that we read in 
books, and hear in sermons/ of an eternal hdly and of 
the bowlings of the damned, and of infents a span long 
being in this place. But in the name of comm^m hu- 
manity, and in vindication of the character of Crod, we 
demand in what part of the Bible such statements are 
to be found. Do the scriptures ever give suoh state- 
ments as these ? They certainly do not. Is it not, 
then, daring presumption in any man to speak thus? 
Shall we never have done in attempting to supply 
what we deem God's defiances ? 

Dr. Campbell, and we presume all critics, object to 
the doctrine, that Hades is to be a place of punk^ment 
after the resurrection. It is evident from Scripture, 
that it is to be destroyed, and be no more. But why 
should this be objected to, and why should it be contend- 
ed for, that Gehenna is to be a place of punishment af- 
ter this i^eriod, and of eternal duration ? Certainly as 



THJB WORD GEHE17NA. 215 

little is said about Gehenna as about Hades, being a 
place of punishment after the resurrection. From no 
text in which Gehenna is mentioned, could this be in- 
frared. Gehenna is never spoken of as a place of pun- 
ishment after the resurrection of the dead ; nor is it 
eyer mentioned in connection with this subject. 

8tb, Closely connected with the last fact ^ is another^ 
ihoi the learned seem to believe in two places of Juture 
vwUshmentf and the common people only in one. Dr. 
Campbell, we h,ave seen, declares that Gehenna is the 
place of eternal punishment for all the wicked. He 
abo thinks, that Hades is an intermediate place of pun- 
ishment until the resurrection ; but that this place is 
ten to be destroyed. If it be true then, that Hades 
ii one place, of punishment, and Gehenna another, it 
9 beyond all doubt that there are two places of future 
punishment^ the one temporary, and the other to be 
eternal in its duration ; the one before, and the other 
after the resurrection of the dead. The first, punish- 
ment for the soul, separate from the body, until the 
resurrection, and the other after, for both soul and body 
fivever. This is indisputable, unless it can be proved, 
that Hades and Gehenna are only two names for the 
same place ; or, which is much the same, that Hades is 
a part of Gehenna, or Gehenna a part of Hades. But 
no man who has paid the slightest attention to the pas« 
sages in which these two words occur, can for a moment 
dunk so. So far from this, no two places could be 
more distinctly marked, as two separate places. The 
various modes of speaking about them clearly decide 
thisy which we have noticed already. We thmk it has 
been shown that none of the passages which speak of 
Ciehenna, support the idea, that this is a place of endless 
miaery for the wicked. If such a place exist in the 
uoiverae of God, and is revealed to us in the Bible, it 
must be under some other name than that of Gehenna. 
Neither Sheol nor Hades can be this place ; for admit- 



816 /lN IN<iUIRY INTO 

ting it to be a place of punishment in the intermediate 
state, it is to be destroyed, therefore can not be of end- 
less duration. If such a place of misery is taught us un- 
der any other name in the Bible, I am willing to con- 
sider it. But this is not^ pretended, I believe, by the 
most zealous friends of the doctrine of endless misery. 

The common opinion of the unlearned is, that there 
is but « one place of future misery, ^nd this place they 
call Ae//, whether this word be the translation of Sheol, 
Hades, Tartarus, or Gehenna. They always speak 
about it as one place of punishment, and consider this 
punishment as of endless duration. The same hell to 
which the spirits of the wicked are sent at deaths is the 
hell to which they send all the wicked forever. If this 
be a mistaken notion of the vulgar, it b certain, most or- 
thodox preachers do not attempt to correct it, for what 
they say about hell tends to confirm them in this opin- 
ion. They always speak about one hell as certainly as 
about one God ; nor do they take any notice of the 
distinction so clearly marked in Scripture, between Ha- 
des and Gehenna. 

9th, Another fact is^ we read of the sea, deaths (xnd 
Hades, deliverins^ up the dead which are in them, yet 
we never read of Gehenna deUvenng vp any thing 
dead or alive. Now, let us suppose, that at death 
the body goes to Hades, the grave, or state of the dead, 
and the spirit goes to Gehenna or hell, to suffer pun- 
ishment until the resurrection. If this commonly re- 
ceived doctrine be true, is it not as rational to think, 
that we should read in Scripture of Gehenna or hell 
delivering up the spirits of the wicked at the resurrec- 
tion, as that Hades or the grave should deliver up their 
bodies. In order to a reunion at this period, it is just 
as necessary that the spirits should come forth from the 
one place, as their bodies from the other. But nothing 
like this is to be found in the Bible. 

If heaven be, as is generally believed, the place of 



T|iB WC^^JO a^l^i^NNA. 217 

happiness after d^ath % tine spirits of the righteous, 
end Gehenna or h^U be tJtie pl^ce ofpunishmeDt for 
the /spirits of the \yict;ed, must not the spirits of the 
Iddt, in order to> reunion with their bodies, come forth 
from hell as certainly as the first from heaven ? But 
I do not find, that at ^his period a word is said about 
bell, or any spirits coming forth from it. But how is 
this accounted tovy if the generally received doctrine be 
•correct ? The only possible way to account for this, is 
fluggested by Dr. CsmpbeUr^tfaat Gehenna is not the 
place of punishmeQt for the wicked until after the res- 
Airreotion. But this, ^e think, will i^ot bear examina- 
tion. In all the texts which ^peak about Gehenna, 
nothing is said of the resurrection of the dead. It will 
not be disputed, that when our Lord spoke to the un* 
believing Jews, and to his disciples, of Gehenna, he 
was speaking on a %iery flifferent subject, the temporal 
punishment coniing on th^ Jewish nation. Why intro- 
4iice G:e\henna on a ^uln^t like this, if it be true that 
the puEushment of .Gen^nna, is that suffered by the 
wicked after the resurrection ? If it is, why is it never 
introduce b»y the in^pijr^d writers, when speaking of 
ih^ resurrection ? It 19^ natui^al to think, it would be al- 
ways apoken of in conpection with it. We find Hades 
ioUows death) and these two ,are spoken of as connect- 
^. But do we ev0r. find it said that Gehenna follows 
the resurrection of ,l;he dead ; ,or that there is any con- 
4ieotiQn between these., t^p. things? No; this is not, 
jld the most distant way^ hinted at. Let any one read 
^ the passages whore, this subject is treated of, and he 
will find that not a word is said hy the sacred writers 
,4y)iicerning Gehenna or hfJl* • In 1 Cor. xv. the fullest 
account is given ,of the xe^urreotion, of any place in the 
Bible ; but neither the. pupii^bment of hell, nor any 
•CAher pgnishnient 13 spoken of in connection with it. 
We tlunk it inqumbekit on those, who believe that the 
pwiahmi^nt of hell suoceei^a tl^^ ^surrectiqp qf the 

19 



218 , AN INQUIRY INTO 

dead, to show, that the spirit of God speaks of it in such 
a connection. If what is said about this be true, this 
ought to be its uniform connection. But no man will 
assert that this is the cade, who has paid any attention 
to the subject. 

10th, Another important fact, deserving our notice , 
is, that none of the original words translated in the 
common version, eternal, everlasting, and forever, are 
connected with Gehenna, or hell. jNo ; though we of- 
ten hear preachers, in our day, speak of an eternal 
hell, such language never was used by any inspired 
writer. The phrase "everlasting fire," occurs in the 
Bible, and this has been shown> to be the same as 
"everlasting punishment," and the "fire that shall 
never be quenched." But we have seen, that none of 
these expressions refer to a place in a future state, 
called Gehenna, or hell ; or that the punishment refer- 
red to is endless in its duration. But an et€fTwl hMn 
often heard of, firom the pulpit, and perhaps many be- 
lieve it to be a Scripture expression. This, with many 
other terrific expressions, which are the chief (Hna- 
ments of many modem sermons, and often uttered 
without much feeling by the preacher^ are not found in 
the Bible. They are bugbears of his own creating, 
which no man who regards the Scriptures, and has 
considered this subject, will be firightened at. Child- 
ren, ignorant, weak, nervous people, may, and indeed 
often are, powerfully wrought upon, by the terrific des- 
criptions which are given of hell. And, after this is 
effected to a great extent, it is called a revivd of reli- 
gion. But is this the work of the Spuit of God ? If 
it be, I demand that some part of the New^ Testament 
be produced, showing that similar revivals were edit- 
ed by terrific descriptions of hell under the ministry of 
Christ or his apostles. Did they paint, in glowing col- 
ors, the horrors of the dammed in hell to make men 
Christians? No man will say so. Not a word was 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 219 

said by them about an eternal hell to the people. All 
such language is coined at the mint of modern divinity, 
and may be a very good plan for increasing a sect, but 
this is a very difierent thing from making men Chris- 
tians. When many of these people get over theur 
fright, they return like the dog to his vomit, and the 
sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. 

I am folly aware that to this it will be objected — ^is 
not everlasting life and everlasting punishment contrast- 
ed in Math." XXV. 46. and some other places ? Yes, it 
is freely admitted, but this contrast is not between hea- 
ven as a place of eternal blessedness, and Gehenna as 
a place of endless punishment, as is gQnerally believed.* 

11th, In the common language of most Christians, 
you find heaven as the place of blessedness far the 
righteoua, spolcen of in amtrast with-Qehenna or hell, 
tM place of endless misery for the wicjced. Whatever 
they say about the former they have a counterpart in 
speaking of the latter. I shall illustrate what I mean 
by an example or two. In the Bible we find persons 
expressing their hopes of going to heaven ; but do we 
ever read of one expressing bis fears of going to Ge- 
henna or hell ? We indeed find persons speaking fa- 
miliarly of Sheol and Hades, and expressing both their 
fears and feelings in regard to this place ; but do we 
ever read of one who expressed his fears or feelings 
about going to Gehenna ? No : not an instance of this 
is found in Scripture. Again ; we read of an inheri- 
tance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not 
away, reserved in heaven ; but do we ever read of end- 
less punishment reserved for any one in hell or Gehen- 
na ? Nothing like this is mentioned by the sacred wri- 
ters.' Again ; Paul, we are told, was caught up into 
paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not 
lawful for a man to utter : but do we read of any one 

* See this passage, and every other passage where everlastings etc* oc* 
oars in the Bible, SSiy considered in my second Inquiry. 



230 AN INqt7IllT IKTO 

that w^ s&nx to Gehenna and there heard or saw toy 
thing? No: but why is it not as natural to eipect, 
that some one should be sent to hear the unutterable 
misery of the one place, ^s the unutterable blessedness 
of the other ? The one, would only be a proper coun- 
terpart to the other. But again ; we have some m- 
stances of persons mentioned in Scripture, who were 
taken up into heaven. Such were Elnoch and Elijah. 
But do you ever find' one individual, abandoned for 
wickedness, on whom God displayed his -signal veli- 

feance, by sending him bodily to hell or Gehenna? 
V^e indeed read of Korah and his company, who went 
down quick into the pit; but we have shown, that this 
pit was not Gehenna or hell, but xm\y the grave or 
state of the dead. Again : Moses and Elias made their 
appearance on the niou^it at our Lord's transfiguration ; 
but do we find any of the wicked characters mentioned 
in Scripture, ever making their appearance fix)m hell? 
We have heard idle stories of wicked persons coming 
fix)m hell to warn others, and describing the awful mis- 
ery of that place. But is any thing like* this stated in 
the Scriptures ? All know that such ridiculous fiibles 
are not found there. 

12th, It is common mth orthodox preachers^ to rep- 
resent hell cw the place of endless torment for the vndC' 
edy and speak of persons hein^ there tormented by the 
devil and his angels. Indeed^ it is common to speak 
of devils and wicked Tnen, as being in the same phtce 
of punishment. But how they came by their informa- 
tion I know not. It is indisputable, that whatever the 
Scriptures mean by the devil and his angels, they are 
not once represented as in Hades, or tormenting any 
persons there. Even Dr. Campbell, though he con- 
siders Hades as an intermediate place of punishment, 
says — " That Gehenna is employed in the New Testa- 
ment to denote the place of future punishment, prepar- 
ed for the devil and his angels, is indi^utable.^ See 



THJB WOBD GEHENNA. 281 

the whole of this paragraph quoted above. If the de- 
vil and his angels are in tins place, which Dr. Campbell 
says was prepared for them, they are not then in Hades, 
the intermediate place of punishment for the wicked. 
We ask then how it can be said with truth, that the de- 
vil and his angels are the tormentors of the wicked in 
Hades ? But some have thought, that though Gehenna 
is the place prepared for the devil and his angels, they 
are not sent there, until the day of judgment, when 
they and all the wicked are to go there together, to suf- 
fer its punishment forever. If the devil and his angels 
are not in Geherma, and sOre never said to be in Hades, 
it seems they, for the present, are not in either place of 
punishment, whilst wicked men are all sent to Hades to 
to be punished irom death until the resurrection. Be- 
sides, it is certain, that such preachers who represent 
the devil and his angels as the tormentors of wicked 
men in Hades, greatly misrepresent them, a thing which 
ought not to be done to real devils. But how often 
has it been heard from the pulpit and published to the 
world, that wicked men at death go to hell, to be the 
companions of devils and damned spirits forever. And 
has not boolcs been put mto the hands of children^ de- 
fKuibing in words, and representing to their eyes in cuts, 
the devil tossing about the wicked there with pitchforks ? 
The truth is, whether my views of Gehenna be right or 
wrong, it is evident the common opinions entertained 
on the subject cannot all be true. 

The evidence which has already been stated, proving 
that Gehenna does not signify a place of endless misery 
is sufficient. But there are yet some thbgs, which 
ought not to be passed over, of a circumstantiarnature, 
which very much confirm this evidence. 

IM, Why did not John in his gospel mention Gehen- 
na, and why did he omit all the dbcourses recorded by 
tfae other evangelists, in which our Lord spoke of Ge- 
henna ? It has been noticed already, that Jdui wrote 

19* 



222 AN INQ,UIRY INTO ' 

his gospel for the use of the Gentiles. This is gener- 
ally admitted. This being the case, it may be thought 
there was no occasion to say any thing about Gehenna 
to the Gentiles. If our Lord as I have stated, meant 
by Gehenna the temporal punishment coming on the 
Jews, this is readily admitted ; but if the damnation of 
hell, was an eternal punishment for all the wicked^ 
whether Jews or Gentiles, how could John omit all 
mention of it ? How can it ever be rationally account- 
ed for, that he believed the damnation of hell was an 
eternal punishment, yet say nothing about it to them ? 
Was it a matter of more importance to tell them, that 
Messias being interpreted, signifies the Christ, or, that 
there was at Jerusalem a pool in the Hebrew language 
called Bethesda having five porches ? Or that the water- 
pots, chap. ii. contained two or three firkins apiece ? 
Can any man think, that if John believed Gehenna a 
place of endless misery, he would be silent about it, yet 
mention to his Gentile readers these things, compara- 
tively of small importance ? But why did John omit 
all these discourses in which our Lord spoke of Gehen- 
na ? A very good reason can be assigned for this, and 
it shows, in what light John viewed the discourses of our 
Lord, alluded to. It was after the destruction of Jeru- 
salem he wrote his gospel. Whitby in his preface to 
the gospel of John thus writes ; " The fathers of the 
fourth and fifth centuries do all agree, that he wrote it 
either in that Isle, (Patmos), or after his return firom it ; 
when he was ninety years old, saith Epiphanius ; when 
he was an hundred, saith Chrysostom. So that accord- 
ing to the account of all these ecclesiastical writers, John 
must have writ this gospel a considerable time after the 
destruction of Jerusalem." Supposing then, that by 
the damnation of hell, our Lord referred to the tempo- 
ral punishment coming on the Jews, we see a very good 
reason, why John says nothing about Gehenna, yea, 
omits all our Lord's discourses in which it is mentioned. 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 223 

The event was past. To have related those discourses, 
would have been to deliver predictions after they were 
fulfilled, and warning men of evils to be endured, after 
they had been suffered. John's conduct is not only 
excusable, but highly proper, in saying nothing about 
Gehenna, and in omitting all these discourses. Does 
not this very omission strongly confirm the view which 
I have given of the passages, which speak of Gehenna ? 
— And is not this omission, irreconcilable with the com- 
mon ideas entertained on this subject ? 

2d, Why does not Luke mention Gehenna in his his- 
tory of the Acts of the apostles ? This is the more 
surprising, as he mentions it in his gospel. On my view 
of Gehenna, this can be rationally accounted for, but 
on the common view, is altogether unacountable. In 
his gospel, he relates our Lord's discourses to the Jews, 
in which he spoke to them concerning Gehenna, in the 
punishment of which they were alone concerned. But 
in his history of the Acts of the apostles, he gives us 
an account of the preaching of the gospel, and its suc- 
cess among the Gentiles, who were not concerned in the 
punishment of Gehenna, and therefore had no need to 
have it mentioned to them. If my view of Gehenna 
be correct, we see that there was no occasion for him 
to say a word about it. — ^But if he believed, hell was a 
place of endless misery, on what grounds are we to ac- 
count for his entire silence on this subject ? If it was a 
punishment in common, to Jews and Gentiles, who died 
wicked, let it be satisfactorily accounted for, why the 
apostles did not preach it to the Gentile nations ? If 
they ever preached this doctrine, it is certain Luke omits 
all mention of it in his history. To say they did preach 
ity b only a gratuitous assertion, and in fact impeaches 
Luke as a faithfiil historian. What historian, would 
omit mentioning the doctrine of universal salvation as 
preached by the Universalists, if he undertook to write 
the history of their preaching for thirty years ? 



BS4 AN INQUIRY INTO 

But if it was right in the apostles, to say not hingin their 
preaching of Gehenna or hell, it must be right in us, fox 
certainly they are the best models to copy after. Sup- 
posing then, that all the preachers among the Gentile na- 
tions, should, in imitation of the apostles, say nothing 
about hell to their hearers, who could blame, them ? 
They could urge the example of the apostles in their 
defence. Here they might take their stand, and bid de- 
fiance to the whole world to prove the contrary. 

3d, Why did the apostles, never mention any thing 
about hell in any of their epistles to the churches ? Not 
one of them, James excepted, ever introduces it. The 
reason of this is equally obvious. The epistles, for the 
most part, were written to Gentile believers, who were 
not concerned in the punishment of hell or Gehenna. 
James wrote to believing Jews, and we have seen, that 
he once, used this word. Now, can any one suppose, 
that if the Gentiles, had been exposed to hell or end- 
less punishment, that the apostles never would, in any 
-of their epistles, have reminded those to whcHn they 
wrote, that they had been saved from it ? They are 
often reminded they were idolaters, and wicked, he&xe 
they believed the gospel, and had been saved from snch 
things : but not a word is said, intimating that any of 
them had ever been saved from Gehenna or hell. From 
the consideration of their being saved, they are often 
exhorted to love and good works ; but never from the 
consideration of their being saved from hell or endless 
misery. As it is never said, that they were once eoppo^- 
ed tx> such a punishment, so they are never reminded 
that they were now delivered from it. No sdf-com- 
plsusant remarks are ever made, that they were now 
safe from the torments of hell, nor any whining com- 
plaints, that their friends^ and neighborsy yea, the 
whole unlelieving Gentile world, were every moment 
exposed to this punishment. We find the apostles and 
primitive Christians, expressing the roost heeat^dlt-gM- 



TBS WOfiD GEHENNA. 225 

itude, thstt they had. been sared from this present evil 
world; that they were translated from the kingdom of 
darkness into the kingdom of God's dear son; and 
using all proper means that their fellow men miglit be- 
lieve the gospel, and enjoy like blessings. The New 
Testament abounds with evidence of this. But do we 
ever find them saying that they had been saved from 
hell or Gehenna? 0^ intimating that their exertions in 
difiiising the gospel, was for the purpose of saving tbd 
heathen from the everlasting tormdbts of this pUce ? 
We leave it with every candid man to say, if the apos- 
tles and first Christians believed as people do now about 
hell, if they could have been thus Alent on such a deeply 
interesting subject. ■ 

Further : no instance is left on record, where an un- 
believer or a backslider was told, as now they 6*6- 
quently arc, that they had sinned away their day of 
grace, and that everlasting torments in hell would be 
their unavoidable fate. No: nor is an instance or any 
thmg like it recorded j of a person being driven to did^ 
traction, from anticipation of the horrors of hell, pro- 
duced by apostolic preaching. No example is given in 
Scripture, of a persoit ending bis days by suicide, to get 
rid of his present terrors of hell torments* Some in- 
stances of suicide are recorded : see the cases of Abith- 
opel, Judas, &:.c. But do we find a smgle hint dropped, 
that it was the terror of hell torments drove them to 
this ? Even of Judas, it is not said that he went to 
hell ; which ought to teach some persons modesty and 
caution, who, in the heat of their zeal, affirm that he 
did go to this place of punishment. If such persons 
had the Bible to make, they would express many things 
otherwise than it has pleased God to do, in the revela- 
tion of his will to mankind. 

It will be allowed, that from the gospel of John, the 
Acts of the apostles, and the epistles, we learn what 
were the doctrines taught to the Gentiles. But can we 



I 



226 AN INQUIRY INTO 

learn from tbem, that the doctrine of eternal punish- 
4nent in hell, was one of these doctrines ? Certainly we 
can not. Supposing, that such writings were publish- 
ed in our day, omiting all mention of hell or its endless 
punishment, would we not say that they did not teach 
the doctrine of heU torments? we have not stated this 
as an argument conclusive in itself. But we think, that 
if none of the other New Testament writers teach this 
doctrine, the argument is conclusive. We have seen, it 
is a conceded point, that Gehenna does not occur in the 
Old Testament in the sense of a place of eternal mis- 
ery. If, then, none of the New Testament writers 
teach it, is not their silence proof, that no such doctrine 
was known or taught by them ? It is well known, that 
the silence of Scripture about any doctrine, in other 
cases, is deemed a conclusive argument against It. And 
why not in the case before us ? It would be dangerous 
to admit the contrary. If it was admitted, then no fault 
could be found with the doctrine of purgatory, and many 
other thmgs about which the Bible is silent. 

We often come to learn, what doctrines are held by 
persons, from the accusations of their enemies. Should 
we bring the doctrine before us to this test, we find some 
additional confirmation, that endless misery in hell was 
not taught by our Lord, or his apostles. 

1st, Let us inquire what accusations the Jews brought 
against the Savior ? The Jews accused him of many 
tlungs ; such as his being an enemy to Caesar ; as in. 
league with Beelzebub ; and as a blasphemer. On his 
trid, Pilate said to him, " behold how many things they 
witness agamst thee. " The principal of these were, 
that he called himself the Son of God, and said he was. 
able to destroy their temple. But I ask, did the Jews 
on any occasion, ever accuse him of having threatened 
them with endless misery in hell? No: bad as the 
Jews were, they never accused him of any such thing. 
If be ever bad done it, would they have failed to bring 



THK WORD GEHENNA. 2S7 

this forward , agaiost him ? None of the Jews, had any 
idea of going to helL Would they, then, have endured 
to be told so, without a murmur or complaint against 
him? Would this have formed no ground of accusa- 
tion ? No man can believe this, who has read the four 
gospels, and has noticed the unwearied opposition of 
the Jews to the Savior. 

2d, Let us see what accusations were brought against 
his followers. They also were accused of being ene- 
mies to Caesar. But passing over other accusations, 
we shall fix on what Stephen was accused of, as a feir 
specimen of what they were all charged with. — ^*'This 
man ceaseth not to speak blaspheihous words against 
this holy place, and the law : for we have heard him 
say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, 
and shall change the customs which* Moses delivered 
us." Enemies, as the Jews were to the disciples of 
our Lord, did they even so much as insinuate the charge 
against them, that they ever threatened Jews with end- 
less torments in hell? They say, -ibat Stephen said 
— " Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy t!his place," but did 
they ever say, that either Jesus, or Stephen said, that he 
would destroy them with everlasting misery in Gehenna 
or hell ? No : let me advocate for once the cause of 
the Jews, they never brought such a charge against 
Christ or any of his followers. On this occasion, let it 
be remembered, that the accusers of Stephen were false 
witnesses, procured for the very purpose of finding him 
guilty. Now, does any man think, or can he suppose, 
that these false witnesses after saying Stephen said, — 
" This Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place," would 
have forgotten to add, such an important charge, "And 
he also said, that he would destroy us and all the wick- 
ed in hell to endless duration ?" The man who can 
believe this to be a mere oversight in these witnesses, in 
not mentioning such a material charge against Stephen, is 
• prepared to believe any thing. But they could not 



3S8 AS INQUIRY INl^O 

bring such an accusation against him, or any of the first 
preachers, for none of them ever used the word Gehenna 
or hell, in preaching either to Jews^ or Gentiles. All 
who had ever heard them preach, could have been call- 
ed as witnesses to prove, that it was a false accusation. 
Such a false charge, would have been in face of public 
opinion to the contrary. 

But let us see what were the accusations which the 
Gentiles brought against the followers of Christ. They 
accused them of turning the world upside down; of 
turning away much people, saying that ^^ they were no 
gods which were made with hands." In consequence of 
&is they were accounted Atheists, enemies to the gods, 
and deserving to be abhorred of men. Now, give me 
leave to ask, was the charge ever brought against them 
in any shape, by any person, that they threatened man 
with endless punishment in hell or Gehenna? Mo: 
all the Jesuitical ingenuity in the world, cannot find a 
word said) which has such an appearance. Had the 
apostles then evj^.threatened the Gentiles with ondl^Ets 
punishment m hell, would they have failed to bring tins 
as an accusation against them ? Should it be object- 
ed here, ^' have: you not shown above, that the hea- 
then nations all believed in the doctrine of future 
fmnishment, and that the Jews learned this doctsine 
rom their intercourse with ^hem ; how then oould 
the beathen be offended with the apostles Sat teach- 
ing one of the tenets of their religion?" To ihis I 
«aswer, that the heathen believed in a future pun- 
ishment in Hadea^ but observe that the apostles neither 
laught such a punishment in Hades, nor in G^h^nna. 
This 13 a fact we think beyond all fair discussion. 
Not a word was said by the apostles to the heathen^ 
iabouf punishment in either of these places. If they 
had preached future punishment in Gehenna to them, 
they Qii^t have said, we have heard of future pitfiish- 
menc in Hades^ ;but wby pr^db this sew doctniie,. a 



,THJB WOftD GSHENNA. 299 

pwmhmerU in Gehenna ? Their not preaching a pun- 
ishment in Hades, shows that they did not believe thi» 
heathen notion ; and the Gentiles never accusing the 
apostles of threatening them with endless punishment 
in Gehenna, is a confirmation that no such doctrine was 
iaught to the heathen world. 

Another circumstance, corroborative of the views I 
have advanced concerning Gehenna, is the following. 
On my views of Gehenna, the conduct of our Lord and 
his apostles, is just what might be expected,*but if by 
Gehenna is understood a place of endless misery, it is 
strange and unaccountable. What I refer to will be 
bcil seen by, v 

1st, Considering our Lord's con4uct We have seen 
from a consideration of all the passages in which he 
speaks of Gehenna, that nine times out of twelve, all 
he says concerning it, was addressed to his disciples. 
In cmly one instance did he ever say to the unbelieving 
Jews — " how can ye escape the damnation of hell ?^' 
Matth. xxiii. 33. Now, notice, that at verses 38, 39, 
ha adds, " behold your house is left unto you desolate. 
For I say unto you, ye shall not see me henceforth till 
ye shall say, blessed is he that cometh in the name of 
the Lord." After this, he never said a word to them ' 
about the damnation of hell. Now, let it be supposed^ 
that by this expression our Lord meant endless misery 
ia a foture state, — I ask, is it possible our Lord should 
only mention this once ? I ask again, can it be believ- 
ed, that he who said ,on the cross, — " Father, forgive 
them, for they know not what they do," should have 
ceased, but with his dying breath, to warn these men, 
that such a place of endless misery awaited them? I 
ask cmce more ; is it possible, that he, who, when he be- 
held the city, " wept over it, " on account of tempoi^al 
calamities in which it was soon to be involved, should 
shed no tears, in anticipating the endless misery of its 
wicked bhabitants ? On the supposition, that Gehenoa 

20 



I 



230 AN INQ,UiaY INTO 

is such a place^ our Lord's conduct is strange and unac- 
countable. But on my views of the damnation of hell, 
our Lord's conduct excites no surprise : all is rational, 
and what the circumstances of the case warrant us to 
expect. They had rejected their promised Messiah, 
the measure of their iniquity they were soon to fill up, 
and they could not escape the damnation of hell. But 
let'it be satisfactorily accounted for, why our Lord never 
afterwards said any thing to them of the damnation of 
hell, if thereby he meant, endless misery in the world to 
come. 

2d, The conduct of his apostles. It is easily seen, 
that their conduct is in perfect agreement with thj#of 
their master before them. - He never said a word about 
hell or Gehenna to the Gentiles. Neither do they. He 
never said a word more concerning Gehenna to the ud- 
beheving Jews, after saying — " how can ye escape the 
danmation of hell ?" Neither do they. If it should be 
objected here, — " why did not the apostles continue to 
speak to the unbelieving Jews about the damnation of 
hell, allowing it to mean the temporal miseries coming 
on that generation? why should they, not have continued 
to warn them of this, as their Lord had done before 
them ?" — ^The answer to this is easy. • In Luke xix. 
42, our Lord told the Jews, that the things which be- 
longed to their peace, were now hid from their eyes. 
Their doom was fixed, their punishment was unavoida- 
ble. Accordingly our Lord said, — " how can ye escape 
the damnation of hell ?" Soon, the wrath of God was to 
come on them to the uttermost. This it did in the 
destruction of their city and temple, when such calami- 
ties came upon them, as never had been before, or evfer 
shall be again, and unless the Lord had- shortened the 
days, no flesh could have been saved. 

In many places of the epistles, written to believers, 
allusions are made to the judgments of God coming on 
the Jewish nation, though not mentioned under the 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 231 

name Gehenna. The event is not only alluded to, but 
spoken of as near ; and Christians are exhorted to pa- 
tience, and holiness, in view of it. But these very 
parts of the epistles, are by many, like the texts which 
speak of Gehenna, all appUed to punishment in a future 
state of existence. See for example, 1 Peter iv. 17 
— 19, and other texts, considered in my second Inquiry, 



SECTION V. 



THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF ENDLESS MISERY CON- 
SIDERED, DRAWN FROM THE USAGE OF GEHENNA 
IN THE TARGUMS, AND OTHER JEWISH WRITINGS. 

If Gehenna, in the New Testament, means, as is 
generally believed, a place of endless misery, we might 
expect the evidence of this to be plain and conclusive. 
But, on examination; we have found, strong evidence on 
the opposite side of this question. We have consider- 
ed all the texts in which this word occurs, and have 
seen, that by Gehenna our Lord referred to God's pun- 
ishment of the Jewish nation. Besides, a great number 
of facts have been produced, in confirmation of this 
view of the subject, and which never can be reconciled 
with the common views entertained of Gehenna pun-- 
ishment. 

But Dr. Campbell avers, Gehenna — ^" was in process 
of time considered as an emblem of hell, or the place of 
torment reserved for the punishment of the wicked in 
a future state. The name Tophet, came gradually to 
be used in this sense , and at length to be confined to 
it." It is alleged, this was its bense in the days of our 
Lord, and in no other sense, is it used in the New Tes- 
tament. Mr. Stuart, in his Exeget/Eissays, p. 141 says — 



333 A)!f INQUIRY INTO 

"it is admitted, that the Jews of later date, used the 
word Oehenna to denote Tartarus, i. e. the place of 
infernal punishment." But no proof of this is offered 
by him from their writings. Nor does he produce any 
proof of the following. He says p. 146—" That the 
word Gehenna was common among the Jews, is evinced 
by its frequency in the oldest Rabbinical writings. It 
was employed by them as all confess, in order to desig- 
nate hell, the infernal region, the world of woe. In 
no other sense, can it in any way be made out, that it 
is employed in the New Testament." The authority, 
to which Mr. Stuart refers for this sense of Gehenna, is 
not the old Testament writers, but "the oldest Rabbin- 
ical writings," and " the Jews of later date." He adds, 
p. 27. "The later Hebrew, the Talmudic and Rabbi- 
nic, was not so late, but that it preceded the time when 
the New^ Testament was written." But whether all 
this is truth requires examination. 

Frohi such statements as these, an argument bias been 
urged like the following. " In the days of our Lord, 
Gehenna was commonly used among the Jews, to de- 
signate hell, a place of endless misery to the wicked. 
Our Lord and his apostles must have used it in this 
^nse, if they meant to be understood by their hearers, 
unless they apprised them to the contrary. But this 
they did not ; hence it is concluded, that Gehenna is 
used to designate the place of future punishment to all 
the wicked, and in no other sense is it used in the New, 
Testament." In reply to this argument, we observe 
1st, Admitting that Gehenna in our Lord's day, had 
obtained this sense among the Jews, the conclusion 
drawn from it does not follow, and for the following 
among other reasons. This, in no instance, was the 
sense of Gehenna in the Old Testament ; and the wri- 
ters of the New, used words and phrases in the sense 
they have there. They spoke — "no^ in the words 
whtch nkan's wisdom ieacheth, but which the Holy Ghost 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 233 

te(wheth,'' 1 Cor ii. 13. Our Lord and his Apostles, 
had no occasion then to apprize their hearers, in what 
sense they used the term Gehenna, for they used it in 
the sense it had in their scriptures.' Again, to suppose 
our Lord and his Apostles, used the term Gehenna in a 
sense of men's invention, is accusing them of adopting 
men's innovations in religion, a thing they reproved in the 
Jews. Again, those who use this argyment respecting 
. Gehenna, would object to its application to other words 
and phrases. They would be the last to assert, that 
our Lord and his apostles, adopted the sense which the 
Jews had attached to the words justification, righteous- 
ness, etc. At what point then are we to stop, if once 
we begin to adopt Rabbinical glosses, given to the lan- 
guage of scripture ? But/ 

2d, We question the truth of the statements made, 
from which this conclusion is drawn. Is it true, that 
in our Lord's day, the term Gehenna was exclusively 
used among the Jews to designate hell, a place of fu- 
ture punishment for the wicked ? This is roundly assert- 
ed, and has too long been taken for granted. Let us 
examine and see, what solid ground there is for this as- 
sertion. 

Between the closing of the Old Testament canon by 
Malachai, and the commencment of the Gospel dispem- 
sation, about four hundred years intervened. Some- 
time during this period, Gehenna must have changed its 
sense, if in the days of our Lord, it was used to desig- 
nate hell the world of woe, as Mr. Stuart affirms. That 
this was not its sense in the Old Testament, is indispu- 
table, and is confessed by Dr. Campbell. Who first 
gave this new sense to the term Gehenna, when it was 
given, and how long before it came to be confined to it, 
we presume no man can inform us ? Our design in this 
section, is, to notice all the Jewish writings, between 
the days of Malachai and that of our Lord, to ascertam, 
what they say about Gehenna. The following are all 

20=^ 



N 



234 AN INQUIRY INTa 

the Jev^rtsh writings extant, of which we have any 
knowledge. 

1st. The septuagint version. The first question to 
be settled is — at what time was this version made? 
Dr. Kennicot in his dissertation, says, p. 319, 320, 
" After many volumnious controversies, amongst learn- 
ed writers upon the Greek version of the Old Tesich 
ment, we seem to have three circumstances clearly as- 
certained — that there was no Greek version before that 
called the seventy — that the version so denominated, 
was made at the beginning of the reign of Ptolemy 
Philadelphus, about 280 years before Christ, — and that 
the version, then made, was only of the Pentateuch." I 
add, Jahn says, all the books were traYislated — " at latest, 
in the second century before Christ." The septuagint 
version, was commenced 280 years before Christ, but 
was not perhaps completed, until about 150 years be- 
fore this period. 

2d, The only other question necessary to be decided 
is — do we find Gehenna used in the septuagint, to de- 
signate hell, the world of woe ? No : Dr. Campbell 
said above, " the word Gehenna does not occur in the 
septuagint." But here he was mistaken, for it does oc- 
cur there with a slight variation in the spelling of the 
\#ord. For example, see Josh, xviii. 16, where the 
word occurs, and is spelled Gaienna, The compound 
Hebrew word ge enm in both cases, is merely given in 
Greek letters. But it is useless to dwell on this topic, 
for the seventy translators, in rendering the passages 
fi-om the Hebrew, where valley of Hinnom, and val- 
ley of the son of Hinnom are mentioned, never sug- 
gest, that such phrases were intended to designate AcS, 
or the world of tvoe. No one alleges they do this. It 
is manifest then, that — " in the second century before 
Chris f' Gehenna had no such sense affixed to it. If it 
was used then in such a sense, it received no counte* 
nance fix)m the seventy translators. Their versicMiy 



I 



THE WO|U> GEHENNA. 5236, 

transmitted no such sense of Gehenna to posterity. If 
it was used then, to desigxSate kdl^ the world of wotj 
why is no trace of this sense to be found in their ver- 
sion ? If the translators had imbibed such an idea, they 
had the same prejudices to give Gehenna such a sense, 
as our translators had, to give hell such a sense in their 
version, in translating Sheoi^ Hades, Tartarus, and Ge^ 
henna. 

One thing here is certain. If Jesus Christ and his 
apostles, used Gehenna in the New Testament, to de- 
signate hell, the world of woe, they did not derive this 
sense of the word, either from the original Hebrew, or 
the Greek version of the seventy. Indecid, I do not find 
any one asserts, that such a sense of Gehenna originat- 
ed in divine authority. It is not doing Jesus Christ, or 
his apostles any honor, to say, they adopted a sense of 
.Gehenna so different from its usage in the Old Testa- 
ment, on mere human authority. The inspired writers 
in the Old Testament, could not give such a sense to 
Gehenna, for it has never be'en proved, that they knew 
of such a hell, a world of woe, to which they could ap- 
ply it. Gehenna th^, when the seventy version was 
made, had no such meaning, but denoted the valley of , 
Hinnom, as it does in the Hebrew Scriptures, which was 
not 200 years before the times of the New Testament 
writers. Then, it retained this meaning among the 
Jews in Egypt, and it is well known, they were the first 
in corrupting the Jewish religion, by mixing heathen ^ 
opinions with it. 

2d, The Apocryphal booJcs. These books, are the best 
autliority extant, respecting the religious opinions of the 
Jews, between the days of Malachai and the coming of 
Christ. Being appealed to, as authority on the point in 
question, and are in the hands of most English readers, 
let us 1st, advert to the time when the Apocryphal books 
were written. This question is not easily determined, 
for the dates of the books are uncertain. But, it is not 



236 AN INQ,UIRY INTO 

of much importance, to settle their dates precisely. 
Those who wish to see what is said on this subject, may 
consult Home's introduction, Prideaux's Connections, 
and Jahn's Introduction. It is certain, most of them 
were written previous to the days of our Lord. The 
second book of Esdras is an exception, for some thmk, 
it was written by some Christian since that period. Gray 
in his key to the Old Testament says p. 531 — " The 
second book of Esdras is not to be found in any He- 
brew or Greek manuscript. It is supposed to have 
been originally written in the Greek language, but is 
extant only in a few latin copies, and in aft Arabic 'ver- 
sion.'' He adds, p. 534 — " The book was never admit- 
ted into the Hebrew canon, and there is no sufficient 
authority to prove, that it was ever extant in the He- 
brew language. Its pretended prophecies, are not 
produced in evidence by Christian writers, striking as 
such testimony must have been, if genuine ; and the 
book was never publicly or generally acknowledged 
either in the Greek or Latin church ; nor was it ever 
inserted in the sacred catalogue, by either councils or 
fathers; but is expressly represented as Apocryphal by 
St. Jerom, who describes it as rejected by the church.'^ 
But notwithstanding the date and character of this book, 
we have no objection to use it, and shall avail ourselves 
of what it says on the subject, in common with all the 
other books. 

It should be distinctly understood by the reader, that 
our examination of the Apocryphal books, is merely to 
ascertain what^were the opinions of the writers, relative 
to Gehenna. The books, we do not consider canonical, 
and are not referred to as proof of the truth of such 
opinions. Gray in his preface to the Apocrypha says — 
p. 51 1 — " The books whicjh are admitted into our Bibles 
under the description of Apocryphal .books, are so de- 
nominated from a Greek word, which is expressive of 
the uncertainty and concealed nature of their original. 



THE WORD GEHENNA. Si37 

They have no title to be considered as inspired writ- 
ings ; and though in respect of their antiquity and valu- 
able contents they are annexed to the canonical books, 
it is in a separate division : and by 'no means upon an 
idea that they are of equal authority, in point of doc- 
trine, with them ; or that they are to be received as 
oracles of faith ; to sanctify opinions, or determine reli- 
gious controversies." But supposing all the Apocryphal 
books, were written sometime during the period which 
intervened between the days of Malachai and the Savior; 
the question then comes before us, what were the opin- 
ions entertained by the writers on the' subject of punish- 
ment, in Gehenna? 

1st, Do they ever use the term Gehenna to desig- 
nate a place of mture punishment ? This has been as- 
serted by some, but is certainly a great mistake, for the 
term Gehenna does not occur in any of the Apochry- 
phal books. It is not used by them in any sense, and 
of course settles the question, that they gave no coun- 
tenance to the opinion, that Gehenna was used among 
the Jews to designate hell, the world of woe. I might 
here drop the subject, for we have already ascertained 
the information required. But I shall pursue the sub- 
ject and Inquire, 

2d, Do the Apochryphal writers use the term HadeSy 
to designate a place of future punishment for the wicked ? 
The term Hades, occurs sixteen times in the original 
Apocryphal books, and is rendered as follbws, in our 
English version of them. 

1st, It is rendered death. See Wisdom of Solomon, 
chap. i. 14. It cannot mean a place of punishment here. 

2d, It is rendered by our translators, " the place 
of the dead,*^ Ecclesias. xlviii. 5, " who (Elias) didst 
raise up a dead man from death, and his soul from 
the place of the dead, by the word of the most High." 
The reference is here, to what the prophet did, in rais- 
ing a dead man to life, recorded in the Old Testament. 



238 AN INQ.UIRY INTO 

When it is said he raised the " soul from the place of 
the dead/' the person himself is meant, for the term 
soul is often used in the Old and New Testaments, to 
designate the man or person, and has been sufficiently 
shown in another place. In Scripture, Sheol or Hades, 
is represented as the place of all the dead. 

3d, Hades is rendered the grave, in the following 
texts : Wisdom of Solomon ii. 1. Eccles. ix. 12; xiv. 
12, 16; xvii. 27 ; xxviii. 21 ; xU. 4. 2 Mac. vi. 23. 
No one can doubt, that Hades in these texts, simply 
means grave, and was so understood by our translators. 

4th, Hades occurs in the following places, and is ren- 
dered hell. Song verse 66. Wisdom of Solomon, xvi. 
13 ; xvii. 14. Eccles. xxi. 10 ; li. 5, 6. Although 
Hades ia these places, is rendered by the word hell, it 
is very obvious, it simply refers to the grave, or state 
of the dead. If the reader turns to all the above texts 
in the Apochryphal books, he will see, that Hades is used 
there in a very similar manner, as Sheol in the Hebrew 
canonical books. It is not intimated, by any of the writ- 
ers, that they beheved Hades was a place of punish- 
ment after death. Nqt one of them insinuates, that any 
person is alive in Hades. On the contrary, our transla- 
tors as we have seen above, render Hades " the place of 
the dead,^^ not the place of the hving. 

3d, Do- the Apochryphal writers, use the term Tarta- 
rus, to designate a place of future punishment for the 
wicked ? No : the term Tartarus, is not used in any sense, 
by any Apochryphal writer. None of them venture to 
say, what Mr.^ Stuart asserts, " that in the Hebrew, 
Sheol, Hades, there was a Tartarus a place of pun- 
ishment for /the wicked." 

There are three additional places, where the word 
hell occurs in the Apocryphal books. 2 Esdras ii. 29 ; 
iv. 8 ; viii. 53 ; But any one who consiilts them, must 
conclude, from the phraseology connected with the 
word Ae//, that Hades, not Gehenna is used in the orig'* 



^ THE WORD GEHENNA. 239 

inal. We have seen above from Gray, that though the 
second book of Esdras, is "supposed to have been 
originally written in the Greek language," it is now only 
extant " in a few Latin copies, and in an Arabic ver- 
sion." As the passages stand in our English version, 
no one can suppose the writer meant to teach by 
them, a place of future punishment for the wicked. 
The hell mentioned, is not spoken of as a place of tor- 
ment, or, that any persons are there in a state of con- 
scious existence. The phraseology used, shows. She- 
oly Hadesy the grave, is referred to, for it is similar to 
the language used about Sheol in the Old Testament. 
It is then manifest, from the above examination, that 
the Apocryphal writers, do not use Sheol, Hades, Tarta- 
rus, or Gehenna to designate hell the world of* woe, as 
has been supposed. They do not use Gehenna in any 
way, which settles in the most sati3factory manner, the 
question in debate. That some of the Apocryphal writ- 
ers believed m future punishment, and held other opin- 
ions not found in the Jewish scriptures, we have shown 
in our second inquiry, from p. 8& — 98, to which we re- 
fer the reader. But this only confirms what has been 
stated in another place, that the Jews while in Babylon, 
and after their return, imbibed many opinions jfrom their 
intercourse with the heathen, which are not 'taught in 
their sacred books. This fact is admitted by all, and 
what many of these heathen opinions were, may be 
learned from the Apocryphal books. But none of the 
writers of them, designate hell the world of woe, by the 
term Gehenna, which shows this was iK)t its commoq 
usage among the Jews when they were written. Now, 
it is certain, some of the Apocryphal books were writ- 
ten near the times of the New Testament, and some 
think, one or more of them were written after this period. 
Does this look, as if Gehenna was in common use 
among the Jews to designate hell^ the world of woe ? 
Let the reader judge. 



S!40 AN INi^UIRT INTO 

3d, Philo Judaus^ writings. The 6rst question to-be 
determined is — at what time did Philo write ? Calmet 
answers, Philo — **was ptetty far in years when he was 
deputed with others to go to Rome, about A. D. 40. 
by the Jews of Alexandria, to defend the right of citbien- 
ship of Alexandria which the Jews claimed, before the 
Emperor Caius." It is obvious then, that Philo mvwt 
have written his works about the time our Savior was 
on earth. 

2d, The next question is — does Philo in his writings 
use the term Gehenna to designate hell, the world of 
woe } This we have every reason to suppose he did, 
if in our' Savior's day, Gehenna was used in this sense, 
and was, as Dr. Campbell asserts, exclusively confined 
to it. It is evident, Philo believed in future endless 
punishment. He says, the punishment of the wicked 
persons is to live for ever dying ; and to be for ever in 
pains and griefs, and calamities that never cease. " See 
Whitby on Mark ix. 43, 44. It is not surprising Philo 
should believe in endless punishment, if Calmet's ac- 
count of him be correct. He says, — "Philo, a famous 
Jewish author, of the city of Alexandria, and of the race 
of the Priests. He made himself so famous by Im elo- 
quence, and by his knowledge of the Philosophy of Plaio, 
that it was commonly said of him at Alexandria, either 
Philo imitates Plato, or Plato imitates Philo. And the 
learned call him the Jewish Plato, or the second Pla- 
to." Philo, could not have been a true Platonist with- 
out believing in endless punishment. There is every 
ground for supposing, that Philo would use the teraa 
Gehenna, if this was its sense and application ia the 
dsiys of our Lord to future punishment. 

The question then is — does the term Gehefltna oe- 
cur in Phib's writings, designating a place of endleas 
punidiment ? It is of no consequence in settling the 
present question, that he believed in endless puoiab* 
ment. no, the question is, did he use the term &e- 



THE WORD 615HENNA. 341 

henna to designate this pkce of punishmentj which is 
said to have been its exclusive sense in the days of the 
Savior. In answer to this, we must say— we have 
never seen, or heard, that Philo's writings are quoted in 
proof, for this sense of Gehenna. Nor have we been 
able to find, that he uses the term Gehenna in any 
sense whatever. If he does, let his writings be quoted, 
that we may see what he says on the subject. No 
doubt they would be quoted, if they contained any 
proof on the point in question. 

4th, Josephus^ writings'. The first question here, is^ 
at what time did Josephus live and write? Calmet 
says, Josephus was — " bom at Jerusalem, in the first 
year of the reign of Caius, A. D. 37." And his writ- 
ings are all included between A. D. 70 and A. D. 
100. He was then bom, not far from the time of the 
Savior's death, and his writings appeared, about the 
same time with the books of the New Testament. 

2d, Does Josephus then use the term Gehenna to 
designate hell, the world of woe 1 We answer no ; nor 
have we ever seen his writings appealed to in proof of 
such an opinion. He gives an account, of the opinions 
of the Jews relative to future punishment, but does not 
use Gehenna to describe it. Whitby on Mark ix. '43, 
44 quotes Josephus thus — "the Pharisees held, that 
the souls of the wicked were to be punished with per- 
petual punishment, and that there was appointed for 
them a perpetual prison." But he, nor no other person, 
so far as I know, ever quoted Josephus, to show he used 
the term Gehenna in reference to future punishment. 
It does not appear from Josephus' works, that any pun- 
ishment after death, was believed among the Jews, un- 
til after their retum from the Babylonian captivity, or 
near the times of the Savior. How they came to im- 
l)ibe this and other heathen opinions, we have notic- 
ed already. 

5th, The Jemsh Targvms. It is to these Targums 

21 



842 AS IN^UIRT INTO 

we ire chiefly referred for proof, that in the days of 
our Lord, Crehenna designated AeZZ, the world of woe ; 
end in this sense it is always used in the New Testa- 
ment. It is necessary then, that we examine this with 
care and attention. Let us 1st, ascertain the nature 
and number of these Targums. For the informatkm 
of some of my readers, I give the following abridged ac* 
count of them, from Prideaux's connections, \qA. 4 pp, 
560—685. 

" The Chaldee paraphrases are translaticms of the 
Scriptures of the Old Testament made directly feora 
the Hebrew text into the language of the Chaldeans ; 
which language was anciently used through all As* 
Syria, Babylonia, Mesopotamia^, Syria, and Palestine ; 
and is still the language of the churches of the Nes- 
torian and Maronite Christians in those eastern parts, 
in the same manner as the Latin is the language of ^ 
Popish churches here in the west. And therefore 
these paraphrases were called Targums, because they 
were versions or translations of the Hebrew text into 
this language ; for the word Targum signifieth, in Cbal- 
dee, an interpretation or version of one language into 
another, and may properly be said of any such version 
or translation : but it is most commonly by the Jews 
appropriated to these Chaldee paraphrases ; for bemg 
among them what were most eminently such, they 
therefore had this name by way of eminency especiaUy 
given to them. 

" These Targums were made for the use and m- 
jrtruction of the vulgar Jews after their return from the 
Babylonish captivity ; for, although many of the better 
sort still retained the knowledge of the Hebrew lan- 
guage during that captivity, and taught it their childreiD, 
and the Holy Scriptures that were delivered after that 
time, excepting only some parts of Daniel and fizva, 
and one verse in Jeremiah, were all written therein ; 
yet the common people, by having so long conversed 






THE WORD GEHENNA. 343 

with the Babylonians, }eamed their language, and for^ 
got their own. It happened indeed otherwise to the 
diildren of Israel in Egypt ; for, although they lived 
there above three times as long as the Babylonish cap- 
tivity lasted, yet they still preserved the Hebrew lan- 
guage among them, and brought it back entire with 
them into Canaan. The reason of this was, in Efgypt 
they all lived together in the land of Goshen ; but on 
their being carried captive by the Babylonians, they 
were dispersed all over Chaldea and Assyria, and, be- 
ing there intermixed Vith the people of the land, had 
their main converse with them, and therefore were 
forced to learn their language : and this soon induced a 
disuse of their own among them ; by which means it 
came to pass, that, after their return, the common peo- 
ple, especially those of them who had been bred up in 
that captivity understood not the Holy Scriptures in 
the Hebrew language, nor their posterity after them. 
And therefore, when Ezra read the law to the people, 
he had several persons standing by him well skilled in 
both the Chaldee and Hebrew languages, who interpret- 
ed to the people in Chaldee what he first read to them 
in Hebrew. And afterwards, when the method was es- 
tablished of dividing the law into 54 sections, and of 
reading one of them every week in their synagogues, 
the same course of reading to the people the Hebrew 
text first, and then interpreting it to them in Chaldee, 
was still continued. For, when the reader had read 
fflae verse in Hebrew, an interpreter standing by did 
render it into Chaldee ; and then the next verse being 
read in Hebrew, it was in like manner interpreted in 
the same language as before ; and so on from verse to 
verse was every verse aller,nately read first in the He- 
brew, and then interpreted in Chaldee to the end of the 
section ; and this first gave occasion for the making of 
Chaldee versions for the help of these interpreters. 
And, they thenceforth became necessary not only fixr 



244 AN IN^IRY INTO 

their help in the public synagogues, but also for the 
help of the people at home in their families, that they 
might there have the Scriptures for their private read- 
ing in a language which they understood. 

*' This work having been attempted by divers per- 
sons at different times, and by some of them with dif- 
ferent views (for some of them were written as ver- 
sions for the public use of the synagogues, and others 
as paraphrases and commentaries for the private in- 
struction of the people,) hence it hath come to pass, 
that there were anciently many of these Targums, and 
of different sorts, in the same manner as there anciently 
were many different versions of the same Holy Scrip- 
tures into the Greek language, made with like different 
views ; of which we have sufficient proof in the Octapla 
of Origen. No doubt, anciently there were many more 
of these Targums than we now know of, which have 
been lost in the length of time. Whether there were 
any of them of the same composure on the whole 
Scriptures is not any where said. Those that are now 
remaining were composed by different persons, and oa 
different parts of Scripture, some on one part, and 
others on other parts ; and are in all, of these eight 
sorts following. 1. That of Onkelos on the five books of 
Moses ; 2. That of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the proph- 
ets, that is, on Joshua, Judges, Samuel, the two books of 
Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor 
prophets ; 3. That on the law, which is ascribed to 
Jonathan Ben Uzziel ; 4. The Jerusalem Targum on 
the law ; 5. The Targum on the five lesser books, call- 
ed the Megilloth, i. e. Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the 
Song of Solomon, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah; 
6. The second Targum on Esther ; 7. The Targum of 
Joseph, the one-eyed, on the book of Job, the Psalms, 
and the Proverbs ; and, 8. The Targum on the first 
and second book of Chronicles. On Ezra, Nehemiah, 
and DanieJ, th^re is |io Targum at all, The reason 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 345 

given by some for this is, because a great part of those 
books is written in the Chaldee language, and therefore 
there is no need of a Chaldee paraphrase upon them. 
This indeed is true for Daniel and Ezra, but not for 
Nehemiah ; for that book is all originally written in the 
Hebrew language. No doubt, anciently there were 
Chaldee paraphrases on all the Hebrew parts of those 
books, though now lost. It was long supposed that 
there were no Targums on the two books of Chroni- 
cles, because none such were known, till they were 
lately published by Beckius, at Augsburg in Germany, 
that on the first book A. D. 1680, and that on the se- 
cond in 1683.'' 

2d, We shall now lay before the reader what the Tar- 
gums contain on the point in question. What then do 
3ie advocates of endless misery produce firom them, 
showing that Gehenna was mftde an emblem of hell the 
world of woe 7 farkhurst on the word Gehenna thus 
writes. — " From this valley having been the scene of 
those infernal sacrifices, and probably too, from its con- 
tinuing after the time of Josiah's reformation, 2 Kings 
xxiii. 10, a place of abominable ^7^Atnc55 sxid pollution ; 
the Jews in our Savior's time used the compound word 
ge enm, for hellj^ the place of the damned. This ap- 
pears, from that word's being thus applied by the Chaldee 
Targums, in Ruth ii. 12. Ps. cxl. 12. Isia. xxvi. 1 
— 5. and xxxiii. 14. and by the Jerusalem Targum, 
and that of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, Gen. iii. 24. and xv. 
17. comp. 2 Esdras ii. 29." 

Again, Whitby on Mark ix. 43, 44, says—" That 
Gehenna, was by the Jews, still looked on and represent- 
ed as the place in which the wicked were to be torment- 
ed by fire : so the Jerusalem Targum represents Ge- 
henna which is prepared for the wicked in the world to 
come, as o. furnace sparkling and flaming with fire, into 
which the wicked fall. And the Targum upon Ecclesi- 
astes speaks of the fire of bell, Eccles. ix. 15 ; of the 

21* 



S46 AK INQUIRY IKTO 

sparks of the fire of hell, chap. x. 2, and of the wick- 
ed, who shall go to bebumed in hell, chap. viii. 10. Ac- 
cordingly our Lord speaks, verse 47, and Math. v. 22, 
of the wicked being cast into the fire of hell, and of 
their being cast into a furnace of fire, Math. xiii. 42. 
The ancient Jews held, that the punishment of the wick- 
ed in hell, should be perpetual or without end. So Ju- 
dith saith, that they shall weep under the sense of their 
pains for ever, chap. 17." 

Dr. Allen in his lecture pp. 20. 21, gives us the 
following account. " As the word Gehenna is a Hebrew 
word, it is worthy of our inquiry to ascertain the mean- 
ing attached to the word by the Jewish writers. By 
Gehenna the Jews understood the place of punishment, 
or the punishments of the wicked after the present life. 
The Targum of Jerusalem, on Gen. iii. 24, says, that 
* two thousand years before the foundation of the wwld, 
Crod founded paradise for the just, and Gehenna for the 
impious, like a two edged sword, cutting on either side* 
In the midst of it he placed a raging fire, in which the 
wicked shall be burned.' So the Targum of Jonathan, 
on Isai. xxxiii. 14, says, * that the impious are judged 
and delivered over to everlasting fire in Gehenna.' On 
Isai. Ixv. 5, their punishment will be in Gehenna, where 
the fire bums perpetually." 

The following is to be found in the Targums, on the 
texts to which Whitby and Parkhurst refer us. 

"Ruth ii. 12. The Lord shall abundantly recom- 
pense thee in this age, for thy good work, and shall be 
thy complete reward to the age that shall come, from 
the presence of the Lord God of Israel ; because thou 
hast come to join thyself to his people and worship, asd 
find protection under the shadow of the majesty of his 
•fflory, and for this righteous conduct thou shah be d^ 
livered from the punishment of Gehenna, that thy por- 
tion may be with Sarah and Ribhah, and Rachel and 
Lea." 



THS WOED 0£H£NNA. 247 

^^ Psalm cxl. 10, 11. Let coals of fire fall from hea- 
ven upon them ; let him cast them into the fire of Ge- 
henna ; into miry pits ; from which let them not rise to 
fetemal life. Let the angel of death hunt the violent 
man, and cast him into Gehenna." 

" Isaiah xxvi. 15. Thou hast heen revealed to us, 
O ! Lord ! as about to assemble the dispersed of thy 
people ; it shall also come to pass that thou w'dt collect 
them from their wanderings ; that thou mightest appear 
in thy power, to cast all tne wicked into Gehenna.' 

"Isaiah xxvi. 19. And those who transgress thy 
word, thou wilt deliver into Gehenna." 

" Isaiah xxxiii. 14. Who among us shall dwell in 
Zion, where the splendor of his majesty is as consum- 
ing fire? Who among us shall dwell in Jerusalem, 
where the wicked are to be judged, and cast into Ge-' 
henna, into everlasting burnings?" 

In the Universalist expositor, vol. 2. pp. 367, 368, 
we have the following account of Gehenna, as collected 
firom the Targums. — " We come, at last, to the Targums 
of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel ; and in the latter 
of these, we meet, for the first time in Jewish writings, 
with Gehenna in the sense alledged. In the former, so 
far at least as the end of the paraphrase on Genesis, nei- 
ther that term nor any thing else relatjng to our subject, 
occurs ; and we presume that such is the case with the 
rest of the work, since it is nearly a literal translation, 
and is never quoted, by the critics, for examples in 
point. Bpt in the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, 
Gehenna is several times used ; and here, as we have 
already observed, it seems appropriated exclusively to 
scenes either of fiiture woe, or of severe and extensive 
judgments in this world : perhaps, always to the former. 
t The author speaks of Gehenna, as the place which God 
^ hath prepared below for transgressors ;' to which he 
* will adjudge them in the day of trial ;' ^nd 'firom 
which he will preserve his righteous servants.' When 



248 AN INQUIRY INTO 

he redeems the captivity of his people, * he w31 appear 
in his power, in order to cast all the impious into Ge- 
henna. It is * prepared, of old, for the nations that 
have oppressed Israel : the King eternal hath prepared 
it deep and wide ; a flaming pile is kindled therein, as 
of much wood ; and the word of the Lord as a torrent 
of sulphur sets it on fire ! The dissemblers, in their 
terror, exclsdm, * who among us shall dwell in Jerusalem, 
where the impious are to be judged and sent into Ge- 
henna with eternal burning.' * The blessed shall see 
them descending into the land of Gehenna ;' such as 
say, ^ stand by thyself, come not near unto me, for I 
am holier than thou, — shall have their punishment in 
Gehenna, where the fire bums continually ; and their 
bodies shall be delivered to the second death ! When 
all people shall come ' firom month to month, and from 
sabbath to sabbath, to worship before the Lord, they 
shall go forth and behold the carcasses of the sinners 
who have despised the word of the Lord ; their souls 
die not, and their fire is not quenched ; and they shall 
be judged in Gehenna, until the righteous shall say of 
them, we have seen enough,' etc. Such is the lan- 
guage in which this author speaks of Gehenna. And we 
may repeat, that it is not only in a different style, but 
under a different name, that he mentions the valley of 
Hinnom. At the c6ie of this Targum, therefore, we may 
conclude that the term had become appropriated by the 
Jews to a place of future torment. Nothing remains, 
but to point out the age of the work." * 

3d, we shall now examine at what time the Jewish 
Targums were written. Jahn in his introduction to 
the Old Testament, pp. 64—68, thus writes, "The 
Chaldee paraphrases are known by the name of Tar- 
gums. (Which means a version or an interpretation.) * 
The most celebrated among them is that of the Pen- 
tateuch, ascribed to Onkelos, whom the Babylonian 
Talmud makes contemporary with , Gamaliel, adding 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 249 

many incoherent tales respecting him: It is evident 
however, that he lived several centuries before the Tal- 
mudical writers, since they know so little of him, al- 
though he wrote in Babylonia. Onkelos, therefore, 
would seem to have written not in the fourth or fifth 
century of the Christian era, but in the third or rather 
in 'the second, and this is confirmed by his paraphrase 
itself," etc. 

Jahn says, concerning the Targum of 'Jonathan Ben 
Uzziel on the prophets — " the work is a collection of 
interpretations of several learned/ men, made towards 
the close of the third century, and containing some of a 
much older date : for that some parts of it existed as 
early as in the second century, appears from the ad- 
ditions," etc. 

Respecting the Targum of the Pseudo Jonathan on 
the Pentateuch, Jahn says, — that it was not written 
before the seventh or eighth century. It seems however 
to have been compiled from older interpretations." 

As to the Jerusalem Targum on the Pentateuch, 
Jahn observes — " this work is more modem than that 
of the Pseudo-^— Jonathan, or certa'mly not more ancient. 
It seems to have been compiled, however, from more 
ancient works, and hence con tarns many sentences 
which are found in the New Testament," etc. Jahn 
adds — " the other chaldee paraphrases are neither older 
nor belter, than the preceding, but abound with di- 
gressions and fictions." 

^We have quoted Jahn's authority, respecting the 
age of the Jewish Targums, because he stands very 
high as a writer among orthodox jpeople. The follow- 
ing from the Universalist Expositor, generally comfirm 
his statements. In p. 368, speaking of the Targum of 
Jon?ithan Ben Uzziel, it is said — " This is uncertain. 
Prideaux, together with several of the old critics, and 
even Gesenius among the living, place it not far from the 
clinstian era, on the authgrity chiefly of Jewish tradi^ 



230 AN iNq,niRT into 

tions. Prideaux, however, has well observed, that ' in 
historical matters, it is not to be regarded what the 
Jews write or what they omit." Most of the emi- 
nent writers now agree, that it could not have been 
axnpleted till some time between two and four hiBi- 
dred years after Christ. Dr. Jahn thinks it, a collec- 
tion of the interpretations of several learned men, made 
towards the end of the third century, and containmg 
some of a much older date." Eickhom says that " Jwi- 
athan certainly lived later than the birth of Christ;" 
and judging from his style, his fables, his perversion 
of the prophecies concerning the Messiah, and front 
the profound silence of the early Jews and Christian 
fathers, he concludes that his compilation cannot have* 
been made before the fourth century. The same cir- 
cumstances that Eickhom adduces, are thought by 
Bertholdt to indicate the second or third century; 
and he is confident that the collection ^cannot havs 
attained its complete form, before the end of the second 
century." With these general conclusions, it is said 
that Bauer likewise agrees; and some critics, have 
referred th9 wc^rk to as late a period as the seventh (nr 
^ghth century, 

Such is the account, which the various critics give, of 
the dates of the Jewish Targums. We shall now sub- 
mit a few brief remarks for the consideration of our 
readers. 

1st, Those who refer us to the Targums tof proof, that 
Gehenna in the days of our Lord, was used among the 
Jews to designate hell^ the world of wot ^ seldom quote 
what they say, on this subject, fully and fairly to their 
readers. Mr. Stuart makes no quotations at all, in |«oof 
of his assertions, nor does he even name the books, or 
pag^ where such proof may be found. We suspect, he 
was somewhat ashamed to do this, for what man, tender 
of his own reputation, would quote the silly remaite, 
wbicbDr. Allen quoted from th^ Jewish Targuni39 ^ven 



TH£ WOBD GEHENNA. . 251 

above. No madman, ever said more silly and ridiculous 
things, than are to be found in the Jewish Talmud and 
Targums. The Targums, most commonly referred to, 
in proof of such a sense given to Gehenna by the Jews, 
are those, into which the writers introduced their own 
-—^^ glosses and silly stories, fables, prolix explications, 
and other additions." 

2d, Let the reader observe, the texts on which the 
Targums are written, afford no foundation for such a sense 
being given to the term Gehenna. This term, is not 
used in the texts in any sense whatever ; nor is the 
writer in any of the texts, speaking either of future 
punishment, or a future world. None of the texts, 
afford the shadow of a ground for saying Gehenna means 
Kelly the world of woe. There is no connection, be- 
tween the text and the comment given on it by the Tar- 
gumists. They might have given the same comment, 
in any other text in the bible, with equal propriety. If 
the texts then, afforded no foundation for such com«- 
ments, why were they made, and why should christians 
regard them ? 

3d, But what decides the question at issue is-*-The 
Targums were not written in the days of otir Lord, con- 
sequently cannot be quoted as proof, that in his day^ 
Gehenna among the Jews designated heUy the world of 
woe. It was impossible in the nature of the case, that 
our Lord derived this sense of Gehenna bom the Jew^ 
isb Targums, as the dates of them show. Thev were 
not in existence, until several hundred years aner our 
Lord was on earth, as the best critics have testified 
above. Why then, are they appealed to at all, in proof 
of this ? And on what ground did Mr. Stuart assert, that 
the later Jewish writers, gave such a sense to Geh^na, 
prior to the writing of the New Testament ? It appean; 
from the following quotation, the facts are very differ* 
ent. 

^^ From the time of Josephus, onwards, there is an 



252 AN IN^Ullflr INTO 

interval of about a century, from which no Jewish 
writings have de^ceniled to us. — ^In this period, we meet 
with the first information which we receive firom any 

Juarter whatsoever, that Gehenna was the place of the 
amned. Still, it is not from a Jew, that this earliest 
notice comes, but from the celebrated christian father, 
Justin Martyr, about A. D. 150. He quotes the lan- 
guage of our Savibr, ' fear not them which kill the body, 
but are not able to kill the soul ; but rather fear him 
which is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna,' 
and then adds, for the instruction of the heathen's to 
whom he was writing, that Gehenna is the place where 
those are to be punished who have led unrighteous lives, 
and disbelieved what God declared by Christ. This is 
of course, merely his interpretation of that term, as he 
understood it in the New Testament ; and notwithstand- 
ing he had been brought up -in one of the cities of the an- 
cient Samaria, he certainly had no acquaintance with 
the language, and probably none with the peculiar 
usages, of the Jews. 

" The next notice of the kind, is, we think, that of 
another christian father, Clemens Alexandrinus, about 
A. D. 195. Maintaining the doctrine of a future state, 
he adduces the authority of the heathen philosophers ; 
* Does not Plato acknowledge both the rivers of fire, 
and that profound depth of the earth which the barba- 
rians (the Jews) call Gehenna ? Does he not prophet- 
ically mention Tartarus, Coytus, Acheron, the Phleg- 
ethon of fire, and certain other like places of punish- 
ment, which lead to correction and discipline ?' Here 
Clemens meant, beyond all doubt, that the Jews denom- 
inated the place of future punishment, Gehenna ; but 
whether he spoke from personal knowledge or from 
presumption, it is altogether uncertain. He knew it to be 
a Jewish, m>t a Greek, word ; and he may have judged 
Its usage among the Barbarians, as he called them, by 
what he supposed its sense in the New Testament*" 
Universalist Expositor vol' 2. pp. 361,366. 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 253 

4th, But supposing the Targums to have been written 
prior to the days of Christ, yea let it be supposed, that 
among the Jews in his day, the current sense of Ge- 
henna was— AeZ/, the world of woe, what does this 
prove? It does not prove, that this sense was given to 
Gehenna by divine authority. Nor does it prove, that 
our Lord used it in this sense. On the contrary, there 
is not the least foundation for supposing, that he would 
lay aside the Old Testament sense of Gehenna, and 
adopt this new sense on the authority of men, and es- 

Secially such writers as the authors of the Targums. 
esus Christ gave no countenance to men's inventions in 
religion, or sanctioned the alterations which the Jews 
had made on the ideas or language of their scriptures. 
The whole of his teaching proves this ; and the texts 
with their contexts, where he used the term Gehenna, 
stand opposed, as we have seen above, to such a sense 
given to this word. Besides, the facts we have adduced, 
never can be reconciled with this sense attached to the 
term Gehenna. But if people will contend, that the 
authority of the Targums is good, in establishing that 
Gehenna in our Lord's day meant hell, the world of 
woe, they can have no reasonable objection to receiving it 
as good, in .a case closely connected with this. I shall 
therefore submit for their serious consideration the fol- 
lowing observations. 

1st, If the Targums are good authority, that Gehenna 
is a place of endless punishment, their authority is equal- 
ly good, in determining who are to suffer it. Permit me 
then to adduce the same authority, from Whitby on 
Rom. ii. to show, that no Jew went to hell to be punished 
forever, but all the Gentiles are fit fuel for hell fire. He 
says, — ^' The Jewish religion was very much corrupted 
at our Savior's coming, so that they thought it sufficient 
to obtain God's favor, and to secure them from his 
judgments, — 1st, That they were of the seed of Abra- 
ham ; and hence the Baptist speaks thus to them, bring 

22 



254 AN INQ,UIRr INTO 

forth fruits meet for repentance, and (think it not suffi- 
cient to) say within yourselves, we have Abraham for 
our father y Matth. iii. 8,9. The Chaldee paraphrasts 
do often mention their expectation of being preserved 
for the merits or good works of their forefathers, Abra- 
ham, Isaac and Jacob ; and their writers add, that hell 
fire hath no power over the sinners of Israel^ because 
Abraham and Isaac descend thither to fetch them thence. 
2d, They held that circumcision was of sufficient virtue 
to render them accepted of God, and to preserve them 
from eternal, ruin ; for they teach that no circumcised 
person goes to hell; God having promised to deliver 
them from it for the merit of circumcision ; and having 
told Abraham, that when his children fell into trans^ 
gression, and did wicJced works, he would remember 
the odor of their foreskins, and would be satined 
with their piety. And, 3d, They taught that a/Z iJra- 
elites had a portion in the world to come ; and that not- 
withstanding their sins, yea though they were condemn- 
ed here for their wickedness : whereas, of all the Gen- 
tiles, without exception, they pronounce that they are 
fuel for hell fire. ^^ Let persons then, who quote the 
Targums in proof, that Gehenna or hell is a place of 
endless misery, take their choice. They must' either 
reject their authority altogether, or be willing to go to 
hell on the same authority ; as Gentiles we must all be 
content to he fuel for hell fire. Let us then make up 
our minds, whether we shall, for the sake of miuntain- 
ing the authority and honor of the Targums In the one 
case, be willing to submit to the punishment they assign 
us in the othen We must either accept of both or re- 
ject both. — ^We might here take our leave of the Tar- 
gums : for what has now been stated, is sufficient to con- 
vince any man, that their authority is not for a moment 
to be regarded. But we shall proceed. 

2d, Parkhurst says, that, " the Jews in our Savior's 
time used the compound word ge enm, tot hell, the 



i 



THE WORD GEHENNA. S55 

place of the damned. And be adds^ that ^^ this appears 
firom that word's being thus appUed by the Chaldee 
Targums, and by the Jerusalem Targums, and that of 
Ben Uzziel." And why does it not also appear^ that 
all the stories, and glosses, and fables, which they in- 
troduced into their Targums, are also true ? We have 
the same authority for the one as for the other. If it 
should be said, that the Targums are only appealed to 
for the manner in which the Jews used this word, we 
reply, that this is not the whole truth, for it is in the 
way tlie Jews did use this word in the Targums, that 
the doctrine is attempted to be proved. The sense in 
which our Lord used the word Gehenna is assumed, and 
the Targums are appealed to, not only for the sense of 
this word, but for the truth of the doctrine. Let it be 
shown, from the context of the passages in which it is 
used, that this is its sense, and there is no necessity to 
appeal to the Targums. But if it be true, which is stat- 
ed in the above quotation, why does it not also ap- . 
pear, that the Gentiles were fuel for hell fire ? By this 
way of making things Mppear io he true, it will be no 
difficult thing to show, that all the silly, sick-brained 
stories of the Apocrypha, Targums, and Talmuds, are 
true. Besides, by the same rule, we ought to believe, 
that the fire of hell is literal, material fire, for the Tar- 
gumists appear to have beUeved this, as is plain from 
the above quotation. But notice, Whitby says, that 
^' the Jewish religidh was very much corrupted at our 
Savior's coming." By what evidence does it then ap-' 
pear, that the Gentiles were fuel for hell fire, and that 
this is a corruption of their religion, but that hell fire 
itself was not also a part of this corruption ? Neither 
of these is taught in the Old Testament. From what 
source, then, do we learn, that both are not a corrup- 
tion of their religion ? How could they be any thing else 
but a corruption of it, when not found in their Scrip- 
tures ? If this is dbnied, let proof be produced to the 



256 AN INQUIRY INTO 

contrary. After reading the above quotation from 
Whitby, no one can dmbt that the Jewish religion was 
very much corrupted. It was a corruption, however, 
as any one may see, which flattered themselves, and 
sufficiently expressed their enmity against the Gentiles. 
After seeing this quotation, and considering the strange 
and ridiculous opinions held by the Jews, what credit can 
any man give, to any thing such persons could say about 
Gehenna, being a place of endless miseiy ? One would 
certably be disposed to think, that, so tax from the doc- 
trine beins true, it was invented for the purpose of 
showing their deep-rooted aversion to Gentiles. If 
Gehenna, held by them to be a place of endless misery, 
be a truth, yet all the other things stated in the above 
quotation are considered corruptions of their religion, 
we honestly own, that we have seldom seen a truth 
held with so many absurd notions. To say the least 
of it, the testimony of such witnesses, is very sus- 
picious. 

3d, But we should like to know, how the writers of 
the Targums quoted above, came by the information, 
which they detail to us concerning Gehenna ? By what 
means did they come to know, that it was a place of 
punishment for the wicked, that the punishment was to 
be literal fire, and endless in its duration ? I repeat the 
question, — Where did the above persons get all this in- 
formation ? Did they derive it from the heathen, or 
did they invent it themselves ? If from neither of these 
sources, let it be shown from what source they did de- 
rive it. Until it is proved, that this information was de- 
rived from God's authority, no man Ought to believe it. 

But it may be objected to this, by saying, is it not said, 
in the above quotations, that our Lord speaks, Mark ix. 
47. and Matth. v. 22. of the wicked being cast into the 
fire of hell, and of their being cast into a furnace of fire, 
Matth. xiii. 42 ?" The two first of these passages 
bavQ beea coasidered, being two ' of those in which 



TH£ WORD GEHENNA. 257 

Gehenna occurs. It has been shown, that Gehenna in 
no instance, signifies a place of endless misery for 
the wicked. As to the last passage, we have shown in 
our second Inquiry, that it has nothing to do with a 
place of endless misery, but refers to the same tempo- 
ral calamities which are spoken of under the em- 
blem of Gehenna, by the prophet Jeremiah. It is 
there shown, our Lord did not derive his allusion to a 
" fiimace of fire" in the above passage, from the Tar- 
gums, but firom the Old Testament Scriptures. It is 
very certain, all professing Christians, not only in our 
day, but for many ages past, have believed, that Ge- 
henna is the place of eternal punishment for all the wick- 
ed. One should think, that it would not be difficult 
to show, from what source this informajtion was derived. 
We might also expect, that instead of referring to the 
Targums, God's authority would be appealed to at once, 
and the Scripture evidence of its truth, would be full 
and explicit. A subject of such universal and deep in- 
terest to the human race, we think, would not be left 
as a matter of doubtful disputation, depending on the 
sense which the writers oif the Targums give to the 
word Gehenna. Even when such writings are appealed 
to, they afibrd no proof of the doctrine, and give us but 
a poor opinion of either the piety of the writers, or the 
correctness of their religious opinions... If eternal pun- 
ishment in Gehenna, be a part of the revealed will of 
God, at some time or other this revelation must have 
been given. Now, I am willing to believe it, and shall 
teach it with all the ability God has given me, if it can 
be shown such a revelation has been given, during any 
part of the four following periods of time : which in- 
cludes all periods in which it could be revealed. 

Ist, I shall believe it, if it can be proved, that it was 
revealed at any time during thie Old Testament dispen- 
sation. That such a doctrine, as the eternity of hell 
torments^ was not revealed during this period, is now 

22* 



258 AN IN^UlftT INTO 

generally admitted. It is confessed by Mr. Stuart and 
others, that it was not revealed under the name of Sbe- 
ol, Hades, Tartarus, or even Gehenna, during that dis- 
pensation : and it is not pretended, that any other name 
IS used to express this place of endless punishment. I 
therefore observe 

2d, That I shall believe this doctrine, if it can be 
proved, that God revealed it in any time from the com- 
pletion of the Old Testament Scriptures, to the com- 
mencement of the gospel dispensation. The time which 
elapsed between these two events, was about four hun- 
dred years. Malachi, in closing his book, commanded 
attention to be given to the law of Moses, until the 
coming of John the Baptist, but gives no injunction to 
pay attention to the Apocrypha or the Targums. And 
we have no account, during the above period, that any 
inspired prophet arose, and revealed such a doctrine to 
the world. To quote any writer from Malachi to John 
the Baptist, in proof of this doctrine, is nothing to the 
purpose. 

3d, I will believe this doctrine, if it is proved, that 
God revealed it since the New Testament was com- 
pleted. This is not supposed, for it is contended by all 
who hold it, that it was known long before this. To 
contend that it was revealed after the New Testament 
was completed, would be to give it up as a Scripture 
doctrine, and sanction all the wild pretentions to inspi- 
ration since that period. If we do not end our revela- 
tions with the New Testament, we shall have a host of 
inspired fanatics, and an inundation of enthusiastical rev- 
eries, for the faithful sayings of God. 

4th, I will believe this doctrine if it can be proved, 
that it has been revealed by God to men, during the 
ministry of Christ or any of his apostles : or, in other 
words, if it can be proved from the New Testament. 
]A11 the passages where Gehenna occurs we have consid- 
*ered, and we thmk have shown, that no such doctrine is 



THIS WOBD GEHENNA. 259 

taught in them. Besides, we have adduced a number 
of Sicts, at variance with such a view of the subjects 
But w€J have a few remarks to make on the above quo- 
tations, of a difierent nature from tho^e already made. 
1st, There is considerable similarity, in the opinions 
held by the Targumists, and Christians in the present 
day. I need not notice, that both are agreed, Gehenna 
means hell, world of woe, for this is obvious. But it 
deserves special notice, the similarity of their opinions, 
as to those who must go to hell. The Jews. considered 
all Gentiles fuel for hell fire, but exempted themselves 
from this punishment. No Jew could go to hell ; or if 
he did — " hell fire hath no power over the sinners of 
Israel, because Abrbham and Isaac descend thither to 
fetch them thence.'^ The " merit of circumcision,'^ and 
" the odor of their foreskins," was sufficient to pre- 
serve them from hell. Such was the faith of the per- 
sons, on whose authority we are to believe, Gehenna 
to be a place of endless misery. Christians now retali- 
ate on the Jews, and consider them fit fuel for hell fire. 
Christians also believe, no Christian shall go to hell. 
Ask any one of them, do you believe you shall go to 
hell? Oh, no, say they, God forbid we should go to 
hell. But why not ? The reasons they assign, are 
very similar to those the Jews assigned. They are the 
children of Godly parents ; they have been baptized ; 
they are members of the church. These, or similar 
things, have put all their fears to rest about going to 
hell. The fact is, I never met with a person in my life- 
time, who believed hell was a place of 'punish\nent for 
himself No, this is for the wicked Jews ; the heathen ; 
or, wicked persons around them. We have even known 
some good people, who, while their children lived, con- 
sidered them as on the broad road to bell, but when 
they died, without much evidence of a change, still 
hoped they were gone to heaven. This conduct of 
their's, has reminded us of the conduct of the ancient 



260 AN INQ.tJIIlt INTO 

Romans with their Caesars. While they lived, they 
counted them devils, but after death, deified them. 

2d, But how came the Jews to believe in a place of 
endless misery, and at length came to use the term Gc" 
tierma to express it ? There are several points fixed 
about this, whict^ enable us to form at least a rational 
conjecture respecting it. Let it then be observed, Mr. 
Stuart, Dr. Campbell, and others, seem to admit, that a 
place of endless punishment is not taught in the Old 
Testament. Here is one point fixed. Again, it is ad- 
mitted by all, that the term Gehenna, nor no other 
term, is used in the Old Testament, to express a place 
of endless punishment. Indeed, it was impossible to 
use Gehenna in such a sense, if no such place was 
known, for a place must first be known, before we can 
give it a name of any kind. Here is another point fix- 
ed on the question before us. Again, it is stated by 
Dr. Campbell, and others, that during, and after the 
Babylonian captivity, the Jews came to learn firom the 
heathen, the notion of endless punishment in a future 
state. This we have seen above. The ihtroduction 
of this, and other heathen opinions among the Jews, 
was gradual, but in the days of our Lord had become 
general, with perhaps the exception of the sect of the 
Sadducees. But though they learned from the hea- 
then, this notion of a place of endless punishment, they 
could not learn from them, to call it by the name Ge- 
henna, for this was a Hebrew term. Another point 
which seems to be certain is — ^the Jews from a variety 
of caused, had imbibed a deep rooted hatred of the 
Gentile nations. They counted them dogs, and ex- 
cluded them firom all participation in the blessings of 
their Messiah's reign. It is also universally admitted, 
that no place known to a Jew, was more abominable 
than Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom. Jahn in his 
Archeology, p. 527, says — " in thelater periods of the 
Jewish kmgdom, this idol was erected in the valley 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 261 

BOOtb of Jerusalem, viz. in the valley of Hinnom, ajid 
ill the part of said valley called Tophet, so named from 
the druna which were beaten to prevent the groans and 
cries of children sacrificed, from being heard, Jer. vii. 
31, 32. xix..6 — 14. Isai. xxx« 33. 2 Kings xxiii. 10. 
The place was so abhorrent to ! the. minds of the more 
recent Jeway that they applied :tfavttiDe Ge Hinnom or 
Gehenna to the place of tomitaiibjiRja iutm^.life. The 
word G^eAenna is.used in lius way'yi(viz. for the place of 
pmiishment beyond the grave,) very frequently in 
oriental writers', as far. as India: Compare Wetsten's 
New Testament, at Math. Ir.S." 

Such are the points which seem to be fixed relative 
to this subject. From these facts, we may form a ra-* 
tional conjecture, how tKe Jews came to use the term 
Gehenna to express.^ place of endless punishment in a 
future state. ; They did not so apply this term, to ex- 

Sress a place bf endless punishment to' themselves. 
To : let it be notiaed, it was so used to express a place 
of endless puoidiment to the Gentile nations. No Jew 
could sufiier the torments of hell. But all the Gentiles 
were fit fuel for hell fire. The Jews had even no deal- 
ings with the Samaritans ; and they counted it proper to 
hate their enemies. Math. v. 43. See how strong this 
prejudice was, even in the minds of Christ's own follow- 
ers, Acts chapters x. and xi. The whole New Tes- 
tament, shows to what extent self-righteousness, self 
bve, national pride, and vanity had taken possession of 
the minds of the Jews. The quotation made from 
Whitby, on Rom. ii. above, shows the malignant ha^ 
tred which the Jews had to the Gentiles. To express 
this hatred of them, they consigned them to hell fire ; 
and it is a probable conjecture, that as no place was more 
iibominable to Jews than Gehenna, they used the term 
Gehenna to express the place of endless punishment to 
the Gentile nations. This conjecture, the reader must 
easily perceive, se^ms to be countenanced from the quo- 



262 AN INQUIRY INTO 

tation fix)m Whitby, and also from the accounts given 
from the Targums respecting Gehenna. But at this 
distance of time, we have no hope of being ever able 
to determine, when, or by whom, this new sense was 
first given to Gehenna. That it was not from divine 
authority, seems certain^ and in the nineteenth century, 
it is high time for .Christians to discard all human au- 
thority in the thines of religion. 

We have now finished our examination, of the term 
Gehenna. The result to which we have come,' and the 
evidence by which we have arrived at it, are before the 
reader, let him judge for himself. In conclusion we 
would observe. 

1st, If any person believes my views are unscriptural, 
the first step to be taken,' to convince me of my error, 
is, to account rationally for the facts I have stated. Un- 
til these are fairly removed out of the way, it is impos- 
sible for me to believe, Gehenna in the New Testament, 
designates hell, a world of woe. Let any candid man 
examine these facts, and then say, if it is possible with 
such facts in view, any rational man can believe this 
doctrine. They form a phalanx of difficulties, which is 
impenetrable, against its reception. Upon no part of 
this whole Inquiry, has more labor of thinking been 
bestowed, than in attempting to reconcile the facts with 
the common opmion, that Gehenna designates a place 
of endless punishment to the wicked. We have turned 
this subject round, and viewed it on all sides, with all the 
attention we could command. I can sincerely say, I 
have sought, but sought in vain, to find something which 
could fairly account for the facts, and reconcile them 
with this doctrine. The more I have labored in this 
way, the facts have increased against it. And I am 
persuaded, if the labor was contmued they would still 
increase, for I am not convinced that the subject is ex- 
Jhausted. 

2d, The next step to be taken, to convince me of my 



THE WOBO GEHENNA. 263 

« 

tnoTf if it be one, is, to examine all the texts which 
speaks of Gehenna, and show that I have misinterpre- 
ted them. When this is done, there will be no need to 
refer me to the Jewish Targums for proof, that Geheijna 
in the New Testament means hell, a world of woe, for 
[ will believe the doctrine, without any appeal to their 
authority. The only question to settle with me is— has 
Bod revealed this doctrine in the Bible ? If he has, 
this is enough for me. But if he has not, popular be- 
lief, the Jewish Targums, all human authority I reject 
svithout hesitation. 

3d, That Gehenna in the New Testament means 
hell, the world of woe, is assumed. The most plausible * 
argument in favor of this sense, is, its usage in the Tar- 
gums. But, if this argument ever had any force, it is 
[low seen, it was derived jfrom a mistaken opinipn, that 
the Targums existed prior to the days of our Lord. 
This has always been taken for granted, as if it ought 
not, yea could not be questioned. How this case stands, 
let the reader now judge ; from the evidence laid before 
him. Should it still be said, Gehenna is to be found 
in this sense, in Jewish writings prior to the days of our 
Lordp I demand that the names and dates of these vm- 
dngs be given, and let them be quoted, that all may see 
what they say on this subject. Assertions prove noth- 
ing ; and if evidence can be produced, why withhold 
it,- for who can believe without it? 

4th, If the true sense of Gehenna in the New Tes- 
tament, is to be learned from its usage in the Targums, 
but very few persons can understand the scriptures on 
this subject. Not one in ten thousand ever heard of 
such writings, and not one in a million of our race ever 
saw them, or have had an opportunity to consult them. 
Can any man believe, God has left his rational o&pring 
at the mercy of such interpreters of the true sense of 
Gehenna ? It is allowed, the bible is the religion of 
protestants ; and no maxim is more true than this — 



264 AN INq,UIBT INTO 

<* the bible is the best interpreter of itself J^ Why then 
go to the writers of the Targums, enemies of Christ 
and of Christianity, to learn, that Gehenna means heU, 
world of woe ? How could they tell, that in this sense 
he used Gehenna, if they wrote several hundred years 
after our Lord was on the earth ? They did not hear 
him deliver his discourses, in which he speaks of Ge- 
henna, and if they had, there was some temptation on 
their part to pervert his meaning. He announced pun- 
ishment to their nation under the emblem of Gehenna 
— " how can ye escape the damnation of helL" 

5th, To quote as authority the Targums, or even the 
christian fathers, that Gehenna means AcK, world ofvooe^ 
in the New Testament, is a plain concession, that such 
a sense is not to be found in the bible. If universalists, 
depended on such authority for the truth of universal 
salvation, their cause would be deemed indefensible. 
They would be looked on as weak, silly, credulous peo- 
ple ; obstinately attached to a false system, which can- 
not be supported by scripture authority. But do they 
support their views of Gehenna, or any other part of 
their system, by such kmd of authority as this ? No. 
We have appealed to evidence and argument drawn 
from scripture, for the views we have advanced about 
Gehenna, and invite a refutation, by an appeal to the 
same authority. All we have had to do with the Tar- 
gums, and other Jewish writings, has been, in exposing 
the rotten foundation on which the conunon doctrine 
rests about Gehenna punishment. 



TH£ WOBB GEHENNA. 865 

SECTION VI. 

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED^ 

Theke is not a truth revealed in the Bible, against 
which one opposed to it, may not start objections. It 
would, however, be a waste of time, and a very trifling 
employment, to answer every silly objection which 
might be made. All will allow, that objections which 
are rational, and which affect the subject against which 
they are brought, demand an answer. Every objection 
which has occurred to myself, or has been suggested by 
others, of any weight against the views which have been 
advanced, I shall now attempt* to consider. These ob- 
jections divide themselves into two classes ; common pop- 
ular objections, and, objections which are urged against 
the argument adduced. Let us begin with the first of 
these. 

One of the most popular objections, is, that my sen- 
timents are of a licentious tendency. It is remarked, 
^' if you do away Gehenna or hell as a place of endless 
punishment for the wicked, what is left to deter men 
from the commission of every crime ? Indeed, say some, 
if I believed there was no hell, 1 would indulge my- 
self in%all kinds of iniquity ! Look, say they, at the 
loose principles, and still more loose morals, of the Uni- 
versalists; and add, by way of triumph, who ever 
heard of a revival of religion among them ?" It will be 
allowed, that I have stated this objection fully andfairly. 
It shall now be my business, as fully and fairly to meet it. 

1st, It is said, " if hell, a place of endless punish- 
ment is done away, what is left to deter men from the 
commission of crime ?" In reply to this, I remark — 
1st, Under the Old Testament dispensation, it is allow- 
ed that the doctrine of endless hell torments was not 
known. Suffer me then to ask, what was left to de- 

23 



366 AN INi^UIBT INTO 

ter men from crime, before this doctrme had existence ? 
When these persons have told us, what was left in thost 
days to deter men from crime without it, we are pre- 
pared to inform them what can deter men in these days 
without it. And if this doctrine^ was not preached wn- 
der the Old Testament to make men holy^ how came any 
then to he holy without it 1 Did Adam, preach the 
doctrine of hell torments to Cain to make him holy ? Did 
Noah, preach this doctrine to make the antideluvians 
holy ? Did Lot, preach this doctrine to make the Sod-» 
omites holy ? Yea, was the belief of this doctrine the 
cause of the holiness of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Lot, 
and a host of others ? Did the belief of hell torments 
make them holy, in distinction from those who were un- 
holy ? If this was the cause of their being holy them* 
selves, why did they not preach this doctrine to make 
their friends, neighbors, and indeed all mankind, holy ? 
If this doctrine was believed in those days, and was so 
well fitted as is supposed, to prevent wickedness, why 
was it not preached ? Surely, ,Noah ought to have 
preached it to the people of the old world, when aD 
flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. He was 
a preacher of righteousness, but I do not find a hint 
given in his history, that he was a preacher of bell tor- 
ments to deter men firom their licentious courses. Be- 
sides ; why did not Lot preach it to the Sodomites to 
make them holy ? They were sinners before the Lord 
exceedingly, but I do not find that he believed this doc- 
trine to keep himself holy, or preached it to others to 
deter them from licentiousness. Not a word is said 
which would lead one to conclude, that the antideluvi- 
ans and Sodomites were all believers in the doctrine of 
universal salvation, and that this was the cause of their 
wickedness, but that Noah, Lot, and others, believed 
in the doctrine of hell torments, and that this led them 
to holiness. 

2d, If the doctrine of hell torments, is so well calcu** 



THE WORD G£ HENNA. 967 

lated to prevent sin, and promote holiness, why did not 
our Lord teach it to the Jews, who are allowed to have 
been a race of very wicked men ? Can any man be- 
lieve that by the damnation of hell, our Lord meant a 
place of eternal misery, that he thought it well fitted 
to prevent licentiousness, yet only mentioned it once to 
the unbelieving Jews ? Did he think, there was nothing 
left, to prevent men from committing all manner of in- 
iquity, and yet but once, and that in a discourse relat- 
ing to the destruction of Jerusalem, said to them — "how 
can ye escape the damnation of hell ?" It is not the 
easiest thing in the world, for us to believe this, 

3, It is an indisputable fact, that the apostles of our 
Lord, never said a word about hell to the Gentiles, 
We ask then, what they had left to deter them from the 
commission of every crime ? If they knew that hell was 
a place of endless misery, for the wicked, and thought 
it such an excellent antidote against licentiousness, why 
did they never make use of it ? They must have either 
been ignorant of such a doctrine, or very culpable in 
not preaching it, to deter men firom crime ; or they did 
not consider it so efficacious as the objector imagines. 
The Gentile nations in the. apostle's days, were very 
licentiQus. And it appears firom chap. i. sect. 3. that 
they were also believers in the doctrine of eternal misery 
in Tartarus. But we see, that the belief of this doc- 
trine, did not turn them from their licentious courses. 
Nor did the apostles of our Lord think the preachirfg 
of eternal misery, either in Hades, or Gehenna, would 
effect this ; for they do not say one word to them about 
punishment in either of those places. Let the objector 
then account for it, if the apostles were of his mind about 
this, why they did not preach this doctrine to prevent 
wickedness in their day. And let him account for it, 
why the Gentiles in believing it, should be so licen- 
tious. If the^rophets', Jesus Christ, or his apostles, did 
pot teach etemaJ torments in hell to promote holiness, 



968 AN IN^UIIIT INTO 

ought not their doctrine to be charged with a licentious 
tendency as well as mine ? There is no way of evading 
this, but by proving, that they did teach this doctrine to 
mankind. This we think never can be done. . If I am 
then to be condemned, how are they to be^ cleared ? 
And if their doctrine did not lead to licentiousness, how, 
in justice, can the views I have advanced be charged 
with it. ' I shall not feel much ashamed at being found 
in such company. These facts, are sufficient to put 
down this objection forever. Nor need we be alarmed, 
that the doctrine will produce an increase of iniquity, 
when the inspired writers «ever used the opposite doc- 
trine, to check the progress of sin in the world. They 
had certamly something left to deter men from sin, and 
which they deemed so efficacious, as to supercede the 
necessity of the doctrine of hell torments. ' 

4th, Let us inquire, what that was, which they deemed 
sufficient without it. Paul says, " the goodness of God,'' 
and not hell torments, leadeth men to repentance. It 
is " the grace of God," not hell torments, which teach- 
eth men to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts. It is 
the "love of Christ," not hell torments, which con- 
strains men not to live to themselves, but to the glory 
of God. All, who are acquainted with the scriptures 
know, to what extent I might here refer to texts of a 
similar nature, showing the same thing ; but I forbear. 
Here then was the sovereign remedy, which they pro- 

Eosed, to cure a licentious world. If this failed, they 
ad no other to propose. All other remedies which 
people have tried to effect it, have been like the woman, 
who spent her all on other physicians, but rather grew 
worse. The love of God in the gift of his Son, is that 
which when believed, and its influence felt constrains to 
love and to good works. Every thing else to efl^t 
a cure without this, is only religious quackery, and this 
we deem the very worst kind of quackery. But 
5th, Those persons, who fiver, th^it if the doctripQ 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 960 

of hell torments is done away, there is nothing left to 
deter men from the commission of every crime, must 
certainly think, that where this doctrine is taught, it 
greatly tends to prevent wickedness. I believe that this 
will be strongly contended for. Is this then true ? Can 
it be established by sufficient evidence ? Has the preach- 
ing of hell torments to mankind, produced such glorious 
effects, as such persons would have us believe ? Our 
actual observation of its effects, we admit is very limi- 
ted. But we have seen a little of it, at Jeast in two 
quarters of the globe, and we think facts will warrant 
us to say, that hell torments, and heathenish morality 
have been preached to people, until they have been 
preached into the grossest immorality. Was not this 
tried for ages among the Gentile nations, but did it turn 
them from sin to God ? No ; it was when the world 
by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God, by the fool- 
ishness of preaching, to save them that believe. Besides, 
our own actual observation does not lead us to think, 
that where the doctrine of hell torments is most preach- 
ed, there the people are most holy. ' 

6th, But admitting that the preaching of hell tor- 
ments did deter men, in many cases, from the commis- 
sion of crimes, — what opinion are we to form of the 
morality produced by such a cause ? We do not envy 
that parent, the respect and obedience which he receives 
from his wife and children, who obtains it from the fear 
of being cast into a furnace of fire! This might do 
well enough for an eastern despot, but no rational man, 
far less the God of the universe, would think this true 
obedience or morality. We venture to say, that such 
a course to produce obedience, either to men or to God, 
is as bad state policy, as it is false divinity. It shows 
as much ignorance of human nature, as it displays a 
want of common humanity. In the preaching of Jesus 
Christ and his apostles, I do not find any attempts made, 
to frighten men fipom their licentious courses into reli- 

23* 



S70 AN ItiqjJlBY INTO 

gion, by terrific descriptions of hell torments. They 
had so many rational arguments^ to induce men to obe- 
dience to God, that they never made use of it. Had 
they deemed it, of as much importance as the objector, 
we have no doubt but that they would have preached 
it to the world. At any rate, he must first prove that 
they did preach this doctrine, before his objection is of 
any force. ^ 

7th, The Apostle's doctrine of salvation by grace, 
through faith, was denounced as leading to licentious- 
ness. Let us sin, said the objector, because grace 
aboundeth. Now, we should like to know, how salva- 
tion in this way to all, should be of a licentious nature, 
and not also to a few? The truth is, the number saved, 
can make no difference in the case. If the doctrine is 
licentious when extended to the whole human race, it 
must be so though, limited to a single individual. But 
every one knows how the apostles refuted the objection. 
"Shall we continue in sin tliat grace may abound?. 
God forbid : how shall we that are dead to sin live any lon- 
ger therem ?" We repel the charge in the same way. 
But, the persons who bring this charge against us, ^em 
to think, that because no hell torments are prepared, 
that men are to go to heaven without any Savior or sal- 
vation. We believe no such doctrine. On the contrary, 
we firmly believe, that all are saved from their sins, 
reconciled to God, and made meet for heaven. If there 
be any Universalists, who believe otherwise, we disown 
them, and would be glad to have them give up the name 
until they have relinquished such principles. But we 
never heard of any Universalists, who held the opinion^ 
that persons go to heaven in their sins. No: in their 
writings and preacliing they disclaim it, and consider it 
not very candid, nor honorable in their opponents, to 
bring such a charge against them. 

Should it be said here, " but whatever they pretend, 
do you not see a great many who profess to be Univer- 



TH£ iVORD GEHENNA. 271 

salists, living very licentious lives ?" We freely grant 
this, but if this is any argument against the doctrine, it 
is olEie which will prove a great deal too much. It will 
prove equally against the Congregationalists, the Bap- 
tists, the Methodists, the Unitarians, and in short, every 
religious denomination in the world. Do you not find, 
many who profess the principles of all these sects, who 
live licentious lives ? We are sorry to say, that this is 
but too evident. But this kind of argument, would even 
prove the principles of the Bible to be licentious* Are 
there not many, who profess its principles, who lead li- 
centious lives ? Yes, alas ! too many. But you will 
seldom find, that the disciples of Paine, or Voltaire, are 
so uncandid, and reason so incorrectly as to conclude, 
that the Bible is of a licentious tendency in its princi- 
ples, because many who profess them are very wicked 
men. But, say the objectors, those licentious persons 
who profess to believe the Bible, and of the above sects, 
do not understand the principles they profess. Grant- 
ed. And why will not the objectors also allow, that 
many who profess to be Universalists, do not understand 
the principles which they profess. If it is no reproach 
to the other sects to have such kind of professors, why 
should it be . any reproach to the Universalists ? The 
fact is, such kind of professors, are no honor to any de- 
nomination professing the Christian name, and we once 
heard of a sect of Deists, who would not have received 
them into their community, for they would not admit 
an immoral person among them. We are sure, the 
fact is too evident to be disputed, that wherever the 
eternity of hell torments has been published, and pub- 
lished too in all the horrors with which human eloquence 
could decorate it, and enforced with all the clerical dig- 
nity and civil authority, that popes, priests, and kings 
could afibrd, it has not prevented wickedness in the 
earth. ' In my judgment, it has produced immoraUty and 
other evil consequences, which human nature, bad as it 
is, condemns. 



272 AN INCtUIRY INTO 

Should an appeal be made to facts, by comparing the 
numbers of those who have lired licentiously, embrace 
ing the various religious systems which have been in 
the world, we are not prepared to admit that the bal- 
lince of the account would be against Universalists. But 
admitting that it was greatly against them, all that this 
could prove, is, that their views tend more to licentious- 
ness than the others. All these different systems pro- 
duce it to a certain extent, but that of the Universalists 
4s the most prolific. But such a mode of reasoning 
is false, for it is allowed, that an argument which proves 
both sides of a question, cannot be a good one. The 
fact is, that persons professing the very best principles, 
have led licentious lives. The grace of God has been 
turned into lasciviousness ; and, what good is there, 
which men have not abused ? 

But, if even a greater proportion of licentious men, 
tvere externally attached to the sect of Universalists, we 
t^hould not be surprised, nor do we think that this proves 
iny thing against the doctrine I have stated. When 
our Lord was in the world, we are told, that— ^" then 
drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to 
liear him.'.' Luke xv. L He was also called by his ene- 
mies, ^' a friend of publicans and sinners." Had our 
Lord preached to them the doctrine of hell torments, 
why were they so fond of hearing him, and why was 
he accused of being their friend?, Certainly he said 
nothing to encourage them to continue in sin, but the 
very reverse ; but we think it is equally evident that he 
did not preach the terrors of hell torments to turn^'them 
from their iniquities. If he did not preach this doctrine, 
there is as little wonder that sinners flocked to hear him, 
as that now a great many of similar characters should 
flock to hear the Universalists. We think then, that, 
allowing a greater proportion of immoral people, should 
be disposed to hear the preachers who, exclude the doc- 
trine of hell torments from their preaching, the case is 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 273 

not surprising. It was so in the days of our Lord, nor 
is there any thing in the nature of the case but what 
might be expected. 

But it is said further, " if I believed that there was 
no eternal punishment in hell, I would indulge myself 
in all kinds of iniquity." Little need be said in reply to 
' this ; indeed it does not deserve one. But as we must 
reply, we would ask, is this person's holiness of the 
right kind ? If it is, we do not see, but that God must 
Lold up the torments of hell even in heaven, to pre* 
vent this person's becoming licentious there ! When 
the stimulus of hell torments is removed, what is there 
to preserve such a person holy? Nothing: and even 
when thus prevented from licentiousness, what is his 
holiness good for ? If it were not for his evil example 
in society we would say to him, — indulge in all manner 
of iniquity, for your wickedness will as soon bring you 
to heaven as your holiness. But further ; it is a very 
evident case, that the obedience of all such persons, 19 
the obedience of a slave undet the terror of the lasb* 
Yea, it shows veiy clearly, that under all this hypocriti- 
cal obedience, such persons are in love with sin, and 
nothmg under heaven prevents their outward indul- 
gence of it, but the fear of hell torments. Indeed, the 
objector openly avows, that if there was no hell, he 
would indulge his lusts without restraint. Holmess, for 
its own sake, he does not love, ' Holiness, from love to 
God, he knows nothing about. And instead of pursuing 
it because he finds it the way of peace and comfort to 
himself, or of any benefit to society, he confesses it to 
bela burden ; and, but for the terror of hell torments, he 
would prefer a licentious course of life. Can any Uni- 
versalist be a worse character than this ? and if there 
be a hell, can any man be found, who is a more fit sub^ 
ject for its punishment ? The terror of hell torment is 
a common topic. It is held up in such a terrific pomt 
of view, that we do not mucb wpqdQr the objector loses 



274 AN INQUIRY INTO 

sight of every thing else, and thinks that all he has need 
to he saved from, is merely from hell torments. We 
must here indulge ourselves with a few remarks relative 
to this view of the subject. 

1st, To be saved from hell torments, is all the object 
tor seems concerned about. ^This we fear is the case 
with too many. We are not much surprised that it is so ; 
for in preaching about hell, the chief thing held up to 
view, IS to be saved from such a dreadfiil place of pun- 
ishment. This theme is so much dwelt upon, and this 
place is described in such a way, that the hearer's mind 
18 wholly absorbed with it. To be saved from this dread- 
ful place, is with him the most essential part of reli^on. 

2d, The objector is constrained to practice self-denial, 
much against his inclination, to avoid the torments of 
hell. If there wa9 no hell he would indulge in all kinds 
of iniquity. But seeing that there is sucn a place, to 
avoid it, he restrains his inclinations. His holiness is 
the mere efl^ct of fear. The man is chained and in 
fetters, and cannot act himself. Only let him loose from 
these, by assuring him that there are no eternal torments 
in hell, and he would be foremost in the ranks of liceo-. 
tiousness. 

3d, The objector has a ven* wrong view, both of sin 
and the salvation of Jesus Christ. He thinks sin a 
pleasant, good thing, if it were not for the hell torments 
in which it must end. He plainly intimates, that this is 
the chief, if not the only thing, which prevents his pres^ 
ent enjoyment of all the pleasures of sin for a season. 
Now, nothing is more obvious from Scripture, than this, 
that sin is connected with present misery; and that 
truth and holiness are productive of happiness. The 
ways of transgressors are hard, whilst wisdom^s ways 
are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths lead to 
peace. A man that feareth the Lord, happy is he; 
but though the wicked join hand in hand they shall not 
go unpunished, Licentiousness is inseparably conn^t- 



TH£ WORD GEHENNA. 275 

ed with loss of health, reputation, and property ; be«* 
sides all the pangs of remorse and mental agony to the 
individual. Holiness is connected with health, reputa-^ 
tion, and temporal prosperity, in addition to peace and 
serenity of mind, which are worth every thing else the 
world can afiTord. But the objector does not think so ; 
for he seems to think, that a life of licentiousness is the 
most happy kind of life he could lead, and but for the 
dread he has of hell torments, would gratify evety sin- 
ful lust and passiqn. But he has also a wrong view of 
the salvation of Jesus Christ. His mind, is so much ab- 
sorbed with the subject of hell torments, that he has no 
idea of being saved from sin, but merely from such pun- 
ishment. But the objector should remember, that our 
Lord received the name Jesus, because he should save 
his people from their sins. But does he find, that iie 
received this or any other name, because he should save 
them from eternal torments in hell ? I do not find it 
once mentioned in the Bible, that Jesus is said to save 
any persons from hell. He came into the world to save 
the chief of sinners, to save men from sin, from the 
course of this present evil world, from ignorance, folly, 
crime and death ; but no inspired writer ventures to say, 
that he came to save men from endless punishment in 
Gehenna. But this view of Christ's salvation, seems, 
in a great measure, lost sight of: and with the objector 
and many others, is taken very little notice of, if they 
can only be saved from eternal punishment. 

But the objector says further, " Look at the loose 
principles, and. still more loose morals, of the Uuiver- 
salists, and adds, by way of triumph, whoever heard 
of a revival of religion among them ?" As to the first 
part of this charge, we think enough has already been 
said, showing, that persons who understand the true 
principles on which the doctrine of Universal salvation 
is founded in Scripture, can neither be licentious in their 
principles nor morals. Such Universalists are no more 



276 AN IN^iUIKY INTO 

accountable for the licentious principles and practice of 
all those who style themselves Universalists, than Cal- 
vinists, Methodists, Baptists, are, for similar characters 
among them. The very same charge has been brought 
against other denominations : and at the present time, is 
urged with great zeal against the Unitarians, and indeed 
all who are not orthodox. 

As to the charge of loose principles^ we observe that 
this is a very loose way of speaking ; for we may call 
any principles loose which do not exactly accord with 
our own. This is the kind of shot, every party fire in 
their turn at each other, when they have nothing better 
at hand. Before we can determine any principles to 
be loose, we must first settle, what are true scriptural 
principles The standard must first be!*established, be- 
fore we can determine the principles which deviate firom 
it. The principles of our Lord and his apostles, were 
counted loose by the Jews. Besides ; do we not find 
that every thing which does not accord with the popu- 
lar creeds of the day, branded with this same mark, for 
party purposes? At the Reformation, the principles 
of the reformers were counted loose by the Romish 
church ; but these very loose principles which they ad- 
vocated, are certainly a blessing to us m the present 'day. 
Indeed, what man since their day, who ever attempted 
to state any thing from his Bible, contrary to the popu- 
lar belief, but has been obliged to submit to the same 
kind of scorn and oblocfuy ? Some of the principles ad- 
vanced by those calling themselves the orthodox, would 
have been deemed not only loose but also heretical^ by 
the persons whose names are the objects of veneration 
to the difierent sects of the day. Calvin, would not 
now own many of those who call themselves Calvinists, 
because their principles have become so loose, differ so 
much from his. And we doubt, if Hopkins would not 
disown many who call themselves Hopkinsians. Yea, 
Mr, John Wesley, if he was to rear his head fix)m the 



\ 

THE WORD GEHENNA. 277 

tomb, would remonstrate, with the Methodists, that they 
have become loose in their principles, in not following 
up the system which' he left them. And it is a notori- 
ous fact, that there is a falling off, in almost every 
sect, from the rigid systems which were originally given 
them by their respective founders. All sects ot pro- 
fessed Christians have corrupted their way upon the 
earth, and are more loose in their principles than they 
once were. What can be a more loose principle than 
this, compared with ancient orthodoxy, that Jesus Christ 
made an atonement for the sins of the whole world. 
Yet this loose principle, is now embraced by Metho- 
dists, Congregationalists, Baptists, yea, by almost all 
sects of Christians. This loose principle^ which form- 
erly would have been considered universal salvation in 
disguise, is now advocated by the sects of the day, and 
what more loose principles they may yet adopt, it is 
not for me to say, or even conjecture. Such has been 
the rapid march of Scripture inquiry and investigation, 
that orthodoxy now, is a very different thing, from or- 
thodoxy twenty years ago. And what orthodoxy will 
be twenty years hence, time must develop. If Calvin 
was alive, that which is now current orthodoxy, would be 
heterodoxy with him. He would disown it. 

Connected with this loose principle, another is now 
advocated — that the number which shall be sent to hell 
to be eternally miserable, will not be a greater prO' 
portion of the whole human race, than the persons exe* 
cuted in any country are to the whole community. The 
man who should have broached such a loose principle 
as this, in former years, would have been burned as an 
heretic. We ask, how much more loose must those 
persons become in their principles, to be as loose as I 
am in mine ? They have not many steps to take, to 
stand on my ground ; indeed, they have got one foot on 
it already. If Jesus Christ made an atonement for the 
sins of the whole world, we really think that such per- 

24 



878 AN INQUIRY INTO 

sons might let all the world be saved. Why deny him 
the glory of saving all for whom h^.died ? Must he die 
in vain for a number, and must they suffer eternally for 
the very sins for which he made atonement or reconcil- 
iation ? And if such persons, have reduced the number 
which are to be eternally miserable, to so few, why not 
let the Savior's triumph over sin and death be complete, 
in saving the whole ? If my principles are loose, the 
principles of such persons are far removed from old, 
rigid orthodoxy. The fact is, that nothing is easier than 
to call certain principles loose. The question with ev- 
ery man ought to be, are they true or false 7 This 
suggests another — what saith the Scriptures 7 To 
them I have appealed, and by their, decision I am wil- 
ling to abide ; and shall feel grateful to the man who 
will show me my error, by an appeal to the same au- 
thority. The word of God correctly understood^ is 
true orthodoxy, and no man's principles ought to be con- 
demned as loose, until it is shown that this standard 
of truth does not warrant such principles. It will be 
allowed that men have gone beyond the Bible, in r^pd 
principles. This, present orthodoxy warrants me to as- 
sert. It is the duty of orthodox people to show, that 
my principles are more loose than the Bible. 

To the second part of this charge, made with such 
an air of triumph, — " Who ever heard of a revival 
among the Universalists ?'' we shall now attempt a reply. 
As we do not wish to hurt the feelings of any who may 
differ from us about revivals of religion, we shall touch 
this point with as gentle a hand as possible. 

1st, If preaching the doctrine of h^ll torments, pro- 
duces revivals of religion, it is not to be expected that 
any revivals of this kind could be produced among 
Universalists, for they do not preach it. That the 
preaching of eternal torments in hell, is one of the prin- 
cipal causes which produce revivals of religion in the 
present day, will not be denied. None of the subjects 



THE WORD GEETENNA. S79 

of such revivals, would be deemed genuiDe converts, 
unless they subscribed to this doctrine, and confessed 
they had seen themselves doomed to hell by God's word. 
Yea, some would even demand the confession of them, 
that they were willing to be damned, in order that they 
might be saved. ' 

2d, There were no revivals, arising from this cause, 
produced by the prophets, by Christ, or his apostles 5 
nor could they be produced, for they did not preach 
the doctrine of hell torments. We think no man will 
affirm, that any revival of religion was produced, or so 
much as attempted by preaching such a doctrine. They 
never used it as a means to alarm and frighten people 
into a profession of religion. They were never found 
running from house to house, terrifying men, women, 
and children, by the most frightful descriptions of hell 
torments, until the whole community was in a religious 
ferment, and a reaction must take place, from the mere 
want of being able to carry the excitement any farther. 
Nor do we find in those days, what is too obvious in 
these, the different sects all exerting themselves in ev- 
ery possible way, to secure the greatest number of con- 
verts to their different churches. A man must shut his 
eyes very close, who does not see through all this reli- 
gious manoeuvreing. 

3c, Deducting, then, all the religion produced by the 
preaching of endless misery, which appears in religious 
excitements, how much would be left with the subjects 
of it ? Such people's minds, are lashed with the ter- 
rors of hell torments into religion, or something that 
passes for it, and the fear of this punishment in a grea- 
ter or less degree, operates upon them all the days of 
their lives. Should we hear of revivals among such 
persons,^ any more than among Universalists, if this false 
doctrine, the chief cause of their production, was done 
away ? We question this ; for, as far as our observa- 
tkm bas extended, the doctrine of h^ll torments has 



280 AN INQUIRY INTO 

been a constant theme in public preaching, and in pri- 
vate meetings, to work on the minds of the people. 
This has been done with children, and others of weak 
minds, in a way, and to an extent, whieh men of com- 
mon sense and prudence, ought to avoid. But, let us 
consider what the Scriptural idea of a revival of reli- 
gion is, and by what means it is produced. The Scrip- 
tural idea of a revival of religion, may be viewed in a 
twofold light. 

1st, When true religion is revived among those who 
are already professors of it ; when they are stirred up 
to be more obedient to God, and lively in obeying his 
commandments, and observing the ordinances which he 
has appointed in his word. 2d, When persons, formerly 
irreligious, are convinced of their sins, believe the gos- 
pel of Christ, and turn to the Lord. I presume no per- 
son, yea, the most zealous contenders for revivals of re- 
ligion, would object to this statement. 

Let us then consider, how Scriptural revivals of reli- 
gion were produced. It will perhaps, be the best way 
here, to refer to some examples of revivals of religion 
mentioned in Scripture. The first I refer to is, that 
which took place in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, 
seen at large in the two books in Scripture of these 
names. What then produced this revival of religion in 
those days ?/ Was it by means of Ezra, Nehemiah, or 
any other person, preaching the eternity of hell torments? 
Was it by working on the passions, and alarming the 
fears of people, by every effort which they could make, 
to overwhelm their understandings with terror ? No man 
will say this, who has ever read those two books. How 
then was this revival of religion brought about ? It was 
by reading the Bible, and pointing out to the people, 
how far they had departed firom what God had comand- 
ed in his word, and showing them that all their sujBTer- 
ings originated in this departure from God. This state* 
ment of the means, by which tbi3 revival was producedi 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 281 

no one will dispute. Nor can the man be found, who 
will venture to assert, that preaching hell torments to 
the wicked had any share in effecting it. We should 
rqoice to see a revival of religion, among all professors 
01 religion in the present day, produced by studying the 
Scriptures, to see how far they have departed from the 
law of the Lord. We trust we should not be wanting, 
in giving it all the aid in our power. I pass over at- 
tempts made by Jeremiah, and other servants of the 
Lord, to produce revivals of a similar nature among the 
Jews, but without success. I only observe in passing, 
that they used similar means to effect it, as did Ezra 
and Nehemiah. But when those means' failed, they 
did not betake themselves to the means, so efficacious in 
our day, to work on the passions of men, by preaching 
the doctrine of hell torments, to effect their purpose. 

A second instance of a revival of religion mentioned 
in Scripture, is that in the days of John the Baptist. 
Was it produced by preaching hell torments ? No. John 
never used the word hell in all his preaching to the peo- 
ple. It was produced by preaching repentance, and 
pointing them to the Lamb of God, who was to take 
away the sin of the world. But the most extraordinary 
revival of religion, is that which took place at the day 
of Pentecost, and during the ministry of the apostles. 
Now, let all read the Acts of the apostles, and see if 
they can find, that any one of the apostles ever said a 
word about hell, or its eternal torments to produce this 
revival. Peter, on the day of Pentecost, is as silent 
on the subject of hell torments, as if no such thing ex- 
isted in the universe of God. ' He addressed the very 
men, who had been the betrayers and murderers of the 
Lord of glory, but did he threaten them with the tor- 
ments of hell, or enforce his doctrine by saying the^ 
were exposed to such a place of punishment ? And is 
not all the preaching of the apostles uniformly the saiqe 
in regard to this subject ? No working on the passions ; 

24* 



282 AN INQUIRY INTO 

no attempt was made to terrify people into religion. 
One might with as much truth affirm, that an eruption 
of mount Vesuvius produced this revival, as that it was 
eflfected by preaching endless misery in hell ! Let men 
only preach as the apostles did, by declaring the glad 
tidings of forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ, and 
many things which go by the name of revivals of reli- 
gion would be at an end. As the means of revivals in 
our day, are very different from those used by the apos- 
tles, so are the revivals produced by such means. The 
converts made, instead of partaking of the meek, hum- 
ble, and gentle spirit of Christ, become cfinsorious, big- 
oted, and dogmatical ; and with reluctance will they ad- 
mit, that persons, who cenainly give as much evidence 
as themselves of Christianity, can really be Christians. 
They get attached to their minister, and to their sect, 
and zeal for these, is^ often mistaken for a zeal for God 
and his glory. Strong excitement of the animal pas- 
sions, sometimes even to extravagance, is ascribed to 
the power of God, at work among the people. As to 
understanding, and believing the gospel of the grace of 
God, little is said, and as little perhaps, is it cared 
about. We think we may say to such persons, in 
their own language, " who ever heard of such kind of 
revivals of religion among the apostles and primitive 
Christians, or who ever heard of their producing any 
kind of revival whatever by terrifying people with 
fearful descriptions of eternal misery ?" The course 
which the apostles pursued was open, manly, and digni- 
fied ; and the doctrine they preached was glad tidings 
of great joy to all people. Theur object, was not to save 
men from Gehenna or hell, but from ignorance, idolatry, 
licentiousness, and unbelief, and to instruct them in the 
knowledge and obedience of the c«ie living and true God 
But, the primary object of preaching in the present day, 
seems to be to save men from hell ; to attach converts 
to some religious party, and enjoin on them to believe 



TH^ WbED OKHENKA. S83 

neither more nor less, all the days of their lives, than is 
contained in the creed, which they subscribed to kxl 
their admission. 

No one will certainly construe what is said in the 
foregoing remarks, into a disapprobation of revivals 
generally; but only of such as are produced by terror. 
We maintain, yea, we advocate true Scriptural revivals 
of religion. We know of nothing which could afibrdhis 
more heartfelt joy, than to see all parties in religion, 
yea, all mankind, attending to the oracles of God, and 
sincerely searching them to know and obey all that the 
Lord hath commanded. In our remarks, we have con- 
sidered terror the principal means in producing revi- 
vals in the present day ; and to stich, and such only^ 
the preceding observations are intended to apply. Di- 
vest modem orthodoxy, of this most powerful engine 
for producing religious excitements, and henceforth it 
would probably have as few to boast of, as Universal- 
ism itself We know not, why the truth of God 
preached by UniversaUsts, should not produce a Scrip- 
tural revival of religion, equally as when preached by 
others. Is it the particular medium or manner of com- 
munication, that is to give the word of God effect ? Or 
is the power of the Lord exclusively confined to a cer- 
tain class of preachers ? It is now as it was in the 
days of the apostles, the Lord hears testimony to his 
own wordy Paul might plant, and Apollos might water, 
but it was God who gave the increase. But if our 
memory has not deceived us, we have seen printed 
rules for bringing about revivals of religion, and some 
preachers have not hesitated to say, that it was the 
people's own fault that they had not revivals among 
them. Yea, some have determined before hand, that 
they would get up a revival, and have gone to work in 
their own way and accomplished it. All this we real- 
ly think is without precedent or example in th0 histo- 
ry of apostolic preaching. 



284 4N INQUIRY INTO 

It is objected, — " That this doctrine is a very pleas' 
ing doctnne to the world.'^ In reply to this objection, 
I would observe, 1st, That the first question to be set- 
tled is this ; is it a true or false doctrine? The Bible 
must decide this, and to it we have appealed. Of 
what use can it be in determining whether a doctrine be 
true or false, to call it either pleasant or unpleasant ? 
To admit the twith of what is here asserted, what could 
it prove against the doctrine ; and to deny it, what could 
it prove either for or against it ? Such kind of argu- 
ments, are generally used by such as have nothing 
better to urge ; yea, are too indifferent about what is 
truth, to give themselves the trouble to investigate the 
subject. To ascertain the truth of any doctrine, we 
have only, according to this objection, to find out if it 
is pleasant or unpleasant. If it is pleasant, it must be 
false, and if unpleasant, it must be true. This mode of 
decision saves a great deal of time and labor in reading 
and investigation; for who would put themselves to 
the trouble of these, when a decision can be made by 
so short and easy a process ? 

2d, I might in my turn say, the opposite doctrine is 
a very harsh doctrine. Perhaps, there is more force 
in this objection against it, than in the one against my 
views. If they must be false, because they are pleas- 
ant, does it follow, that the opposite doctrine is true, 
because it is harsh ? We should think it rather an ar- 
gument against its truth. That the objector's doctrine 
is not a harsh doctrine he has got to prove. The very 
saying, that my doctrine is pleasant, implies, that he is 
sensible his own is harsh. We presume many have 
thought it so, who have been afraid to speak freely 
their minds on the subject. Yea, we doubt if any man 
can seriously meditate on the doctrine of eternal mis- 
ery, and say it is pleasant. Influenced by religious preju- 
dices, and overawed by public opinion, persons assent 
to it, but do not feel convinced in their judgments of 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 285 

its truth. When they begm to reflect seriously on the 
eternity of hell torments, and compare it with the well 
known character of God, as a God of goodness, mercy, 
and truth, the mind is at a stand what conclusion to 
come to concerning it. They think the Bible teaches 
it, and therefore they must believe it, but with the 
character of God they are unable to reconcile it. 

3d, The gospel of the grace of God is a very pleas- 
ing doctrine, and if the objection has any force against 
my views, it equally lies against it. The objector then 
has pleasing doctrines as well as the one I have been 
stating, against which he cannot make his objection to 
bear. But why is this the case, for if the pleasant na- 
ture of any doctrine proves it false, why believe the 
gospel of God to be truth ? — ^It is certainly a very pleas« 
ing doctrine to hear, that there is dL possibility that any 
of the human race will be saved. It is still more pleas- 
ing that there is a probability that a great number of them 
will be saved. And we are at a loss to know, why it 
shojuld not be still more pleasing, if it can be proved, 
that all the human race will certainly be saved. But 
while the two first of these will be admitted as pleasant, 
and this is no argument against their truth, yet the last 
is considered false, because it is the most pleasant. Does 
the objector say, we know the two first are true, but 
not the last. This is the very point at issue to be proved, 
and the proof must be drawn from some other source, 
showing the falsehood of my doctrine, than the pleasing 
nature of it. 

4th, If the pleasant nature of the doctrine, be a solid 
objection against its truth, the fewer saved the better, 
to prove the doctrine false, and the more agreeable, I 
presume, to the objector. We think, we may go ftu^ 
ther, and say, that the eternal misery of the whole hu- 
man race, which would be precisely the reverse of my 
doctrine, is most likely to be the true one, according to 
this objection. Its being harsh or unpleasant, then, 



886 AN INQUIRY INTO 

shows it to be true ; and because it is so unpleasant, 
this is the strongest evidence that it must be true. The 
fact is, there is no real argument in the case before us. A 
false mode of reasoning is adopted, and the world might 
end, before any thing conclusive could be made out by 
it on this subject. 

5th, The objector seems to think, that my doctrine 
is pleasing, and the force of his objection arises, from 
thinking, that all are to be saved without a salvation 
from sin. This is his mistake, not mine. Should he 
say, this is the inference that many will draw from it, to 
go on in sin ; I reply, I cannot help this, any more than 
the objector can, when persons draw inferences from his 
doctrine, to go on in the same course. Yea, I cannot 
help this, any more than an apostle could, when per- 
sons drew the inference from his doctrine, " let us sin 
because grace aboundeth." What^ doctrine is it from 
which men may not draw inferences to go on in sin ? 
The only one that I can at present think of, is the doc- 
trine of universal, eternal misery. Even this is not an 
exception, for the inference would be, " since at death 
we are all to be eternally miserable, — let us eat and 
drink, for to-morrow we die." If some have argued, — - 
^^ let us sin because grace aboundeth," perhaps others 
have also said, — " let us sin because eternal torments 
aboundeth." 

6th, Is it not God's design tha^t the gospel of his 
grace should be a pleasing doctrine to the world ? It is 
glad tidings of great joy to all people. We ask, does 
God mean to save the world by the preaching of an un- 
pleasant doctrine 1 If so, we know of none better fit- 
ted to effect this, than the doctrine of eternal torments 
in hell. Had the apostles preached this doctrine, just 
as much as preachers do in our day, we should have 
been inclined to believe, that God meant to save men 
by the preaching of this very doctrine. But will any 
man affirm, that then: preaching has any affinity to many 



THE WOBD GEHENNA. 287 

sermoDS we hear in oi;r day ? The word Gehenna or 
hell, none of their hearers ever heard them utter, if the, 
New Testament is to be our Bible. But the word Aefl, 
is now on the Ups of all preachers, who believe this 
doctrine, so frequently, that one would think, if they 
learned their divinity from the Bible, that it waa full of 
it. The apostles never used this word in any sermon, 
but they seldom omit it. Whether my views be right 
or wrong, it is certain^ it was not God's design to save 
men in the apostle's day by preaching hell torments to 
them, for this theynever did ; and it is also very cer- 
tain, that my views are more like those entertained by 
the apostles, than the sentiments taught by orthodox 
preachers. I put in therefore my claim, for being more 
orthodox than they are, if apostolic preaching is a true 
standard of orthodoxy. I may add, what seems also 
certain, that if it be God's design now to to save men 
by preaching the doctrine of eternal misery, he has 
changed his mind, for this was not his design in the days 
of the apostles. 

7th, If the objector is sincere in ui^ng this objec- 
tion, that because the doctrine is pleasant it cannot be 
true, does it not fairly follow, that the moye unpleasant 
any doctrine is, the more certain is its truth ? Upon 
this principle no doctrine ought to be more, surely be- 
lieved than the doctrine of eternal misery, for surely it 
is not a pleasant doctrine. All Universalists therefore, 
ought at least to belieye the objector's doctrine because 
it is so unpleasant to them. But on the other hand, 
the objector ought to believe their doctrine and for the 
very same reason, because their doctrine is unpleasant 
to him. By this mode of deciding what is truth, both 
doctrines are proved true, and the two ought to believe 
each other's doctrine, and reject their own. But when 
they have done this, they must just reject the new 
doctrmes they have embraced, and receive their for- 
mer ones for the yery same reason ; for the doctrines 



5288 AN IN^UIEY INTO 

they have embraced respectively are pleasant, and 
those they dow oppose are unpleasant. In short, it 
proves both doctrines true and both false at the same 
time. 

8th, But we may ask the objector, is it possible for 
any man to receive any doctrine until it appears pleas- 
ant to him? We thi^k this is impossible. A doctrine 
may appear very unpleasant, and while it does so to 
any person, he will reject it. This we have a very 
good example of in the objector himself. The idea 
Siat hell is not a place of endless misery appears to 
him an unpleasant doctrine, and hence he rejects it. 
And the doctrine of eternal misery, on the other hand, 
appears at least to him a very pleasant doctrine, and 
consequently he receives it. Yea, let the objector try, 
to receive any doctrine until it appears pleasant. The 
doctrine of endless misery he [has received, and we 
think it must appear to him pleasant, whatever it may 
be to other people. We think he ought not to deny 
this, and sure we are, that we shall never envy him 
any part of the pleasure which it affords him, until we 
have altered our minds greatly on this subject. 

9th, If my doctrine be so pleasant as the objector 
says, how comes it to pass that it is not universally re- 
ceived ? Why is it even so much opposed ? So far 
from its being a pleasing doctrine to the majority, it 
is one which is generally condemned. All sects are 
agreed to put it down, if possible. There is some- 
thing then in the doctrine, which renders it unpleasant. 
What this is, it is not difficult to perceive. This doc- 
trine, certainly bears hard against the pride and self- 
righteousness of the human heart. It affords no room 
for one man to glory over another, as a particular favor- 
ite of heaven. Some, yea many, murn^ur against the 
good man of the house, that every man should have a 
penny ; and like the elder son in the parable, are an- 
gry that the father should treat prodigab with such 



> THE WOED GEHENNA. S89 

kindness. They think there should be a heU to punish 
sinners in forever, and some have even gone so far as 
to say^ if all men are to go to heaven, they do not wish 
to go there. So long as such a spirit prevails, there 
need be no wonder that my views of this subject should 
be hated and Opposed. The iSrst thing such persons 
ought to do, is to consider the nature of their spirit. 
Can such a spirit be the spirit of Christ ? 

It is further objected, " that this is a very good doc- 
trine Jo live hy^ but it will not do to die by,^^ — ^In an- 
swer to this objector, let it be remarked, that this ob- 
jection implies, that the doctrine of eternal misery, is a 
doctrine which will do, both to live and die by. But 
that my doctrine, can afford no hope or comfort, either 
in life or in death. Or does he mean, that his doc- 
trine affords more of these, both in life and in death ; 
but that mine only affords a false and temporary hope, 
and comfort in life, but no hope nor comfort in death ? 
Taking this to be the true sense of the words of the ob- 
jector, we would then ask him, how he knows that his 
doctrine will do better to live and die by, than mine ? 
We do not think he can make any possible reply to 
this, but by saying, my doctrine is true and yours is 
false. Well, whoever urges this objection, will consider 
it a duty they ought to perform, to pove that my views 
are unscripturaL For 

1st, If they are true, why will they not do to live 
and die by better than the opposite views, which must 
be false 7 The whole here depends on the truth or 
falsehood of my sentiments. If they can be proved 
from the Scriptures false, I frankly confess that they 
are neither fit to live nor die by. Candor, in the ob- 
jector, will certainly also grant, that if my sentiments 
are true, his doctrine of eternal torments in hell, is not 
fit either to live or die by, because it must be false. I 
contend, that true doctrine, or in other words, the doc- 
trine of thq Bible, is the doctrine which men can either 

25 



290 AN INQUIRY INTO 

live or die by comfortably. Error, is not good for men, 
either in life or in death. It is truth which ^ves true 
hope and joy to the mind, and it is truthy whidh is a 
light to the feet and lamp to the path. The whole 
here depends on which of the two doctrines is the doc- 
trine of Scripture. While this remains undecided, I 
have as good a right to say to the objector as he has to 
me, your doctrine is a very good doctrine to live by, 
but it will not do to die by. Until the objector feiirly 
meets the arguments, by which I prove Gehenna or 
hell, is not a place of endless misery for the wicked, I 
might dismiss this and other objections of a similar na- 
ture. But 

2d, The objector must allow, that if his doctrine is 
so good to die by, it is not very good to live by. He 
certainly cannot deny, that the doctrine of eternal tor- 
ments in hell, has given much distress to many, and 
many too, whom he wo\ild not deny to be the excellent 
of the earth. We think, it does not give one half the 
distress to the thoughtless and licentious, as it does to 
the more thinking, serious, and exemplary part of the 
community. The former laugh, dance, and play, and 
drive away all their fears of the pimishment of hell tor- 
ments. The doctrine, only gives distress and miseiy 
of mind to the most valuable part of society. These, 
and these almost exclusively, are the persons who are 
rendered miserable all their life-time by this doctrine. 
We think the objector will not deny, that many instan- 
ces have occurred, where persons of thinking. and seri- 
ous habits, have been driven to distraction, and even to 
suicide by it. But was a case ever known, where a 
person was distressed in his mind, went deranged, or 
ended his days, because hell was not a place of eternal 
torment for. a great part of the human race ? We have 
found a few, who would be very sorry, if my views 
could be proved true. This we have imputed to want 
of consideration, and a false zeal for a &vor^ doctrine^ 



/ 
THE WOED GEHENNA.' 291 

but we are under no apprehension, that if they are- 
found true, they will carry then* zeal so far as to end 
their days in consequence . of it. Is not my doctrine 
then better to IWe by, than that of the objector ? 

3d, But if my views are such as may do to live by, 
but will not do to die by, how came it to pass, that per- 
sons could both live and die by them under the Old 
Testament dispensation ? It was not known in those 
days, that Gehenna was a place of eternal misery for 
the wicked, yet many lived happy, and died happy. It 
does not appear, from any thing I have ever noticed in 
the Old Testament, that persons then derived any hope 
or consolation, either in life or in death, from the doc- 
trine of eternal torment ; nor, that it was any motive in 
producing obedience to God's comma.ndments. We 
find no holy man of God in those days, urging the doc- 
trine of endless misery on mankind, as a good doctrine 
to live and die by, and warning men against the oppo- 
site doctrine, as a dangerous error. Besides, how could 
the apostles and first Christians, either live happy or 
die happy, seeing they knew nothing about hell as a 
place of endless misery ? They knew nothing of this 
doctrine ; therefore let the objector account for it, why 
my doctrine will not do to live and die by now, as well 
as in the days of the apostles. What would the object- 
or have done for this doctrine to live and die by, had he 
Ihred eighteen hundred years ago? He cannot say, 
that the apostles ever preached the doctrine of hell tor- 
ments for any purpose ; and far less that they preached 
it, as a good doctrine to live and die by. 

4th, But let us examine a little more particularly, 
what there is in the doctrine of hell torments, which is 
so much better fitted to live and die by, than the senti- 
ments which I have stated in the foregoing pages. 
The objection we are considering, is often used, and 
serves some on all occasions, when argument fails, in 
defending the doctrine of hell torments. When hardly 



292 AN INQUIRY INTO 

pinched to defend it, from Scripture, they cut the mat- 
ter short, thus, — " Ah ! your doctrine may do very 
well to live by, but it will never do to die by/* This, 
perhaps, uttered with a sigh or a groan, answers in place 
of a thousand arguments with many. I shall therefwe 
give it more attention, than it deserves. Let us then 

Consider the comparative merits of the two opposite 
doctrines to live by. The doctrine, or my doctrine^ that 
hell is not a place of eternal torment for all the wicked 
is barely allowed to be a doctrine, which men may j?o«- 
sibly live by in the present world. Now, fhow Adam, 
Noah, Abraham, Lot, and others, made out to live by 
it, I do not stop to inquire. I leave my opponents to 
inquire, how they, and the' apostles, and first Christians, 
yea, I may add Jesus Christ himself, succeeded in living 
so well by it. When they have found out this, I can 
be at no loss to tell them, how I and others can live by 
it. But we pass over this, and wish to bring the compar- 
ative merits of the two doctrines into notice, as best fit- 
ted to live and die by. 

1st, Then, let us attend to the fitness of the doctrine 
of eternal misery, to live by. If it indeed be better 
fitted for this purpose, it must be 'in the foUowmg things. 
1st, As a ground of hope in respect to future happi- 
ness. But, how any man can make the eternal tor- 
ment of others in hell, a ground of hope to himself I am 
unable to devise. If the eternal misen'' of one human 
being, affords the objector any ground of hope, the mcwre 
doomed to this punishment then, so much greater the 
extent and solidity of his ground of hope. But -as this 
is not likely to be the ground on which this is placed, I 
observe 

2d, Does it afford a more certain and sweet source 
of joy in this world, than the opposite doctrine ? A 
man's joy must arise from his hope whether it is well 
or ill founded. If, then, the doctrine affords no ground 
of hope, it can be no source of joy to him. Besides; 



THE WORD GEHENKA. 293 

we have always thought, that Jesus Christ and hipi cru- 
cified, was the foundation of true hope, and the source 
of true joy to people in this world. We never under- 
stood, that the certainty of endless misery, was set forth 
in Scripture as the ground of our hope, or the source 
of our joy. The apostle. Gal. ii. 26. says : " The Hfe 
which I now live in the flesh I live hy the faith of the 
Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." 
But, did the apostle ever say, that the life he now lived * 
in the flesh, he lived by the faith that hell was a place 
of endless misery, either as a ground of his hope erf source 
of his joy ? Or did he ever say, that Christ loved him 
and gave himself for him, to save him from the punish- 
ment of this place ? He joyed in God through our 
Lord Jesus Christ, but I do not find that hell torments 
were a source of joy, either to him or to any one else. 
It could pot be so : for none of the apostles ever spoke 
of hell as a place of endless misery. We then ask, how 
this doctrine can be to any a better doctrine to live by 
than mine ? We ask fiirther, in what way is it better fitted 
to live by than mine, if the persons who profess it, derive 
neither hope nor joy firom it ? I ought to allow, perhaps 
that it does afford a selfish joy to some, that they are se- 
cure from the torments of hell, while multitudes are doom- 
ed to ^suffer its punishment forever. This we presume, is 
all the joy which this doctrine affords, and we ought to 
call it any thing but Christian joy. But why the doc- 
trine of eternal torments, is better fitted to live by than 
mine, probably is, 

3d, That it is considered a better preservative against 
a licentious life, and a more powerful motive to holiness. 
This, I presume, is the ground on which the doctrine of 
eternal misery is counted the best erf the two to live by. 
Is this then true ? We thmk we have said enough in 
answering the first objection, to prove that it is not. 
We shall however add the following remarks here, to 
show that it cannot be true. We ask, then, — Is love 

25* 



294 AN INi^UIRT INTO 

or terror the most powerful principle to stimulate to a 
cordial and universal obedience ? Let both Scripture 
and every day's experience decide in this case. Will 
any man affirm, that the obedience required of us in 
Scripture is there held forth, as an obedience induced by 
the terror of hell torments ? No ; it is the obedience 
of gratitude and love. Terror, may frighten men to 
comply with many things to which their hearts are to- 
tally averse. It is love which sweetly constrains, not 
only to external obedience, but to the obedience of the 
heart and affections. But what does experience and 
daily observation teach concerning this ? Who, that is 
acquainted with the history of the world, or with human 
nature, will say, that terror of the most horrid punish- 
ment, has been found efficacious in producing a cordial 
obedience in any department of human society ? " So 
much are legislators and others convinced to the con- 
trary, that many nations are altering their code of laws, 
respecting the severity of human punishments. We 
then ask, in what respect the doctrine of eternal misery, 
is better fitted to live by than my doctrine, if it aflfords 
no hope nor joy to those who believe it, and is not a 
proper inducement to a holy life in the world ? Let 
the objector point out, if he can, its preferable nature, 
and show wherein it consists. My doctrine is, that God 
never threatened men with eternal torments in hell; 
that he never made any such revelation to the world, 
but sent his Son to make reconciliation for transgressors, 
ind to save them from their sins. That this doctrine is 
better fitted to live by, as to hope, joy, and obedience, 
we should deem it a waste of time to point out. My 
doctrine as to these things, compared with its opposite, 
is like noon day, to the gloom of midnight. We think, 
it will not be disputed, that if my sentiments are Scrip- 
tural, all anxious fears about eternal misery are at once 
removed ; a foundation of hope and source of joy to 
men laid open, which are calculated to animate and con- 



THS WORD GEHENNA. 295 

sole the mind under every trouble of this world ; and 
motives to gratitude and obedience to God presented ; 
which the doctrine of eternal misery certainly does not 
afford. No, on the other hand, it fills the mind with 
gloom and anxiety ; it leads to views of God not very 
favorable to his character ; and is not calculated to 
make men love and serve him. We may indeed hope 
in his mercy revealed in the gospel through Jesus Christ, 
and may have joy in believing that we shall escape the 
torments of hell. But that the best of men are still 
haunted with fears and anxieties, notwithstanding this, 
will not be denied. That this has been their state olf 
mind, in regard to their own personal safety from hell, 
is what we might expect ; but they have been also per- 
plexed and distressed, as we think every good man must 
be, about the eternal condition of all their fellow crea- 
tures. We pity the man, who, if he thinks himself safe ' 
from this place of torment, feels no concern for the un- 
numbered millions of men all equally interested in the 
decision of this important question. 

Let us now consider, how the doctrine of eternal 
misery, is better fitted th§n my sentunents, to die by. 
It must, be better to die by than mine. 

1st, As a ground of hope in death. But we ask, 
what ground of hope it can afford to any man at death, 
to think that the doctrine of eternal misery is true? 
Can he look on his wicked wife, and still more wicked 
children, and neighbors, in the hour of death, and make 
their eternal misery a foundation of hope for his own 
eternal blessedness ? Can the certainty of their eter- 
nal misery, afford him any hope of safety 1 Can he 
die with a more joyful hope because their misery is to 
have no end ? 

2d, As a source of joy and consolation in death. 
But to which of the saints of old shall we refer, to find 
that the doctrine of endless misery, was any source of 
joy to them, when about to leave this world ? Can^any 



996 AN IN<^UIRT INTO 

thing like this be found in all the book of God ? What 
name ought even a joy of this kind to receive, if it was 
possessed? But we* do not think, this doctrine affords 
any joy in death to a person dying, either concerning him- 
self or those he is about to leave. We rather think, 
that the doctrine at this hour, is often, to the believers 
of it themselves, rather a source of pain and uneasiness. 
Should their hopes of heaven, be such as to banish all 
fear for themselves, it often proves a source of misery to 
them, in regard to the friends and relations they leave 
behind. This, we think, will no be disputed. Now, 
allowing that my doctrine is true and the objector's false, 
how different would be the state of mind in which men 
would bid a last adieu to friends and relations, yea, to all 
the world. Such separations are often heart rending 
scenes. My doctrine, at this time gives hope, is a heal- 
. ing balm, for it is only a momentary, not an eternal sep- 
aration. But the opposite doctrine adds pungency to 
every parting pang, and the only consolation it affords 
to the dying saint, with regard to many of his relatives, 
is, that he shall have the pleasure of viewing from 
heaven, their torments in helj^ forever^ Let us suppose 
ourselves by the bed of a dying person, and hear him 
say, that he was full of hope ana joy, arising from his 
belief in the eternity of hell torments ; and that the tor- 
ment of his relations, friends and neigbors, would give 
him pleasure in heaven. I ask, what would we think 
of such a person ? It would certainly be charity, to be- 
lieve, that he was disordered in his mind. If we did 
not, we should conclude that some evil spirit possessed 
him, and that in this state of mind he was very unfit for 
heaven. 

To conclude. We are either too blind, or too per- 
verse, to perceive how the objector can prove, that his 
doctrine is a good doctrine, either to live or to die by. 
We should be glad to see it shown, if it can be done, 
how eternal misery in hell, can be to any man a good 
doctrine, m life, or at death ; in time or in eternity. 



THE WOBD GEHENNA. 297 

It is a very popular objectioD, brought against my 
views of Gehenna, — " If you are correct, we must be- 
lieve the most learned, and good men, yea, most 
Christians, for a great many ages, have been in a great 
error. Do you think yourself wiser than any of them ?" 
In answer to this objection, let it be remarked 

1st, That I make no pretentions to superior learning, 
wisdom, or goodness. I only profess to have paid some 
attention to the Scriptures on this particular point, which 
those persons, taking the subject for granted) have inad- 
vertently overlooked. This all men are liable to. It 
will be granted, that no man is perfect in knowledge. 
And it will be seen, that those learned an J good men 
from whom I differ, very, unfortunately took it for 
granted that Gehenna was a place of endless misery 
for all the wicked. Had they not done this, but as I 
have attempted to do, examined into the truth of this 
doctrine, they would have given a very different account 
of Gehenna or hell, from what they have done. From 
their superior learning, talents, and means of informa- 
tion to which I have no access, they would have placed 
this subject in a much more luminous and convincing 
light. Were those very men alive, they would be the 
last men, who would blame me for my inquiry on this 
important subject. 

2d, This objection, was urged at the Reformation 
against the reformers, and indeed may be urged against 
all reformation to the end of time. It will serve a Jew, 
a Mahometan, or a Pagan, as weH as a Christian. If 
it has any weight against me in the present case, it is 
equally strong against every man, who advances any 
thing from his Bible, contrary to what learned and good 
men have believed in past ages. Those very men, 
whom I am blamed for differing from, were blamed in 
the same way, in dissenting, from learned, wise, and good 
men, who preceded them. They did not scruple to dis^ 
sent fron)j or go beyond those who wont before tb^m^ 






I 



298 AN IN<IUIET INTO 

and assigned their reasons for so doing. And why 
should not we do the same thing? If this is not done, 
knowledge would be perfectly stationary, and an end 
is put to advancement in Biblical knowledge. Had the 
reformers been frightened, with this and similar objec- 
tions, we would now be all good Catholics, or perhaps 
idolaters, worshipping the works of our own hands. 

3d, So long as such learned and good men are allow- 
ed to be fallible men, it must be admitted, that they 
may have been mistaken. We ought not to receive 
their opinions about Gehenna, or any other doctrine, 
without examination. We ought to bring them to the 
Bible for trial, and be satisfied, that they are not the 
mere opinions of men, buj the faithful sayings of God. 
This I have done, with respect to the common opinion 
entertained about hell, and I request every man to try 
what I have advanced, by this infallible standard. If 
those men have been mistaken, it is certainly high time 
that the mistake was corrected. If they are correct, 
and the common opinion concerning hell be true, much 
good must result from the present discussion, in leading 
men to examine more carefully, the ground on which 
their faith is built. It will not be denied, that a great 
many who are believers in the doctrine of hell torments, 
have received this doctrine by tradition from their fa- 
thers, without any Scriptural examination of it for them- 
selves. 

4th, It is allowed, that those learned and good men, 
lived and died in many errors, and some who bring this 
very objection against me, take the liberty to dissent 
from their opinions in other things. Why may they 
not have erred in thinking that Gehenna was a place 
of endless misery ; and why have not I as good a right 
to dissent from them in this, as some have done in other 
things ? All we wish is, let the subject be impartially 
examined, and truth will be brought to light by the 
investigation. Can any Calvinist, Hopkmsian, Baptist, 



TH£ WOBB GEHENNA. 299 

/ 

/ 

or Methodist, urge such an objection with a good grace, 
when they all, each in their own way, dissent from 
the doctrines of so many learned, wise, and good men, 
who lived before them ? Before they open their lips 
against me, let them return to the doctrines of their 
forefathers, and confess how greatly they have departed 
from the good old way. But each sect thinks, that 
their departure from the doctrines of their fathers, is a 
nearer approach to the doctrine of the Bible. This is 
just what we think concerning our departure from 
their views of hell or Gehenna. In proportion as we 
have receded from them, we think we have approached 
the truth in the Bible, concerning this subject. 

If we are to believe, just as learned and good men 
have taught in past ages, many things now most sure^ 
ly believed, must be renounced, for men have very 
greatly departed from their views of many Scripture 
doctrines. You hear men every day call themselves 
Calvinists : but Calvinism now is a very different thing 
from what is found in the works of John Calvin. You 
also hear of orthodoxy, but orthodoxy is not the same 
now that it was twenty years ago, and what is true or- 
thodoxy in America, would not be orthodoxy in Scot- 
land. The truth is, men are beginnmg to search the 
Scripture for themselves, and are taking the liberty to 
dissent from theu* fathers, however learned, or good 
they may have been. The Reformation was the dawn 
of day, after the long night of ignorance and supersti- 
tion. But were the reformers to rise from the tomb, ' 
they would be surprised to see some good, and wise, 
and learned men, contending that we must advance no 
farther, but must sit down satisfied where they left us. 
Happy for us, that we live in an age and in a part of 
the world, where it would not be in the power of man 
to stop the tide of inquiry and investigation. 

Another jjopular objection against my views of Ge- 
henna, is thus stated. — " Supposing, that the evidence 



300 AN IN<IU1!IY INTO 

you have produced, showing that Gehenna is not a 
place of endless misery for the wicked, to be almost, if 
not altogether, conclusive, yet allowing a bare jpossibil- 
ity, that the opposite doctrine may be true ; those who 
believe it, though in an error, are still on the safest side. 
They can lose nothing if your doctrine be true, but you 
may lose both soul and body forever, if their doctrine is 
true.*' I have stated this objection with all the forpe I 
can give it. It is predicated on a mere possibility , that 
the doctrine of hell torments may be true^ and that in 
face of evidence, allowed to be almost, if not altogether, 
conclusive, in proving the opposite doctrine true. We 
shall offer a few brief remarks in reply. 

1st, If there be any force in this objection, it is cer- 
tain we ought not to be regulated in our belief or dis- 
belief of any doctrines, by the degree of evidence, 
which may appear in their support. No : this has 
nothing to do in leading us to believe one doctrine, and 
reject its opposite for want of evidence : for though it 
is allowed, that the evidence adduced is nearly conclu- 
sive that Gehenna is not a place of endless misery, yet 
all this evidence is nothing, and we must still go on be- 
lieving that it is, on the mere possibility of its being 
true, unsupported by evidence. 

2d, Whether my views of Gehenna or hell, or the 
'commonly received doctrine about it, be the truth, one 
thing is certain; every Scriptural doctrine must have 
evidence to support it. Evidence is the criterion of 
truth ; nor can a man be said to believe any doctrine, 
farther than he understands it, and perceives the evi- 
dence of its truth. Where the evidence, for or against 
any doctrine is equally balanced, the mind is in doubt, 
and suspense prevails, until some additional evidence ' 
appears, which leads the mind to preponderate to the 
one side or the other. This is the natural course of 
every candid mind, in serious search after what is truth. 
But here, though the evidence adduced tliat Gehenna 



THE WORD GEHENKA. 301 

is not a place of endless misery, is allowed to be nearly 
conclusive, yet the mind must preponderate to the op- 
posite side. It is not even allowed to hang in doubt, 
and suspend judgment until further evidence shall ap- 
pear, but must come to the conclusion, that eternal mis- 
ery is true, on the mere ground that after all it may 
possibly be true. The mind, must come to the very 
opposite conclusion of that to which the evidence leads. 
A mere possibility, thrown into the one scale, far out- 
weighs all the evidence w^ have adduced, in the other. 
This is not the course a caridid mind pursues in consid- 
ering the comparative weight of evidence. If the im- 
portance of the subject, demands scrupulous care in 
coming to a decision, the evidence on both sides is sub- 
jected to a strict examination, and further evidence is 
eagerly sought after, to remove doubts and decide with 
certainty on the subject. But this is not the course we 
must pursue on this subject, if this objection is to he 
regarded. Should doubts remain, arising from lack of 
evidence, that my views of hell or Gehenna are true, or 
that the evidence which I have adduced is considera- 
bly weakened by the evidence on the other side, all I 
wish is, let the subject be more carefully examined. 
But I enter my protest, against shutting our eyes to the 
evidence which has been produced, and still profess to 
go oni)elieving an old popular doctrine, upon the mere 
fossibility that it may be true, without producing evi- 
dence on the other side. Had such a course been 
pursued, or had such objections as this and others been 
allowed at the Reformation, we had to-day been in 
darkness which might be felt. 

3d, But the objector, in this objection, has reduced the 
subject of discussion to a mere profit and loss account, 
as to our different views of hell or Gehenna, and that 
(m the supposition^ that his views may possibly be true. 
Let us examine how this account stands. 

1st, Then, let us attend to his side of this account. 

26 



302 AN INC^UIRY INTO 

It Stands thus : The doctrine of eternal torment in hell, 
may possibly y after all, be true, and if true, in conse- 
quence of embracing this error, I may lose my soul and 
body forever. Such is the loss with which I am charg- 
ed in his account. It is a loss which cannot be exceed- 
ed, by saying any man has lost more than this. It is 
certainly of such a nature, as no man who was not de- 
termined on his own everlasting misery would on any 
consideration run the least risk about. No language un- 
der heaven, has a word to express my folly and madness 
in avowing such sentiments, if they are not true. I cer- 
tainly must then, have the credit of being a sincere be- 
liever of the sentiments I have advanced relative to this 
subject, whether true or false. 

But how is this account proved against me to be true? 
I deny that the entry is true, or that the account of loss 
charged, can be proved. Is it the belief that hell is a 
place of endless misery, which saves any man ? And 
is it unbelief in this doctrine which damns any man to 
this punishment ? Here seems to be one radical mis- 
take of the objector. He seems to think that if his 
doctrine is true, all who have not believed it, must suf- 
fer this punishment for not believing it. But if this was 
true, he would send all the ancient prophets and saints 
to hell. He would also send all the apostles and first 
Christians there, yea, the Savior himself, for he^nor any 
of those persons, ^eem to have believed his doctrine. 
If their unbelief of it, does not involve such an awful 
and solemn loss to them, how can it to me ? Placing 
me in such company, I shall not feel much alarmed ; 
yea, he will be obliged to add to our company, all the 
Universalists, and all who have doubted of the truth of 
his doctrine and a multitude which no man can number, 
who have in their hearts disbelieved it, but who were not 
honest enough to avow their convictions. He perhaps 
may be obliged to add even himself, for a belief founded 
on a mere possibility that the thing believed, is true, is 
surely not far from unbelief concerning it. 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 303 

But the objector labors under a mistaken notion as to 
what saves, Acxjording to hira it is the belief of the 
doctrine, that hell is a place of endless misery. It is 
not the belief of this which saves men from hell or from 
any thing else. Jesus Christ is the Savior, and it is the 
gospel or glad tidings of God's grace or favor through 
him, that saves men from every thing they need to be 
saved from. Nor would the objector undertake to de- 
fend, that a man who believed the gospel, and showed 
his faith by his works, would be damned if he did not 
also believe the doctrine of 'endless misery in hell. 
Would he not pause a moment, before he, with one in- 
discriminating sweep, sent all to hp.ll who have not be- 
lieved his doctrine ? This charge must then be can- 
celled from his side of this account against me. The 
objector may take his choice, either to do this, or with 
me to consign prophets, apostles, and innumerable oth- 
ers oyer to eternal misery. 

2d, Let us now examine my side of this account 
against the objector. My loss is the loss of both soul 
and body forever, if his doctrine is at last found true. 
It is freely granted, that if my doctrine is true, that nei- 
ther the objector nor any other man, loses soul and body 
forever. But because these are not lost, does it follow, 
that he loses nothing ? We think that this is another 
very considerable mistake of the objector, which re- 
quires to be corrected in his account. Is it no loss to a 
man that he lives all his days, and at last dies in a very 
great error, though that error does not involve him at 
last in eternal misery ? Is it no loss to him, that his 
error gives him very wrong views of God's character, 
and his designs by the salvation of his Son. Does it 
make no difference to him, as to profit or loss, to look 
on God as dooming a part, and by some the greater 
part of mankind, to inconceivable and endless misery, 
and being persuaded that God never threatened one of 
the children of men with such a punishment ? Is it no 



304 ' AN INQ,UIRY INTO 

difference to him whether he spend his days in the cer- 
tain and joyful hope of heavenly happiness, and that 
without any fears and anxieties- about eternal misery, or 
live under fear and ansiiety all the days of his life, and 
with fear and trembling, as to his future destiny, give up 
the ghost ? And allowing him free from all such fears 
and anxieties as to his own future happiness, is it no loss 
to him to be denied the same hope and comfort of mind 
as to all his fellow creatures? In one word, does he 
suffer no loss by such wrong conceptions of God^s char- 
acter, which mar his oy/la peace and comfort, and in- 
volve so many of his fellow mprtals in endless misery? 
Such is a brief statement of the objector's losses. I 
leave the reader to enlarge it, which may easily be done 
to a much greater amount. Can he now say that he 
loses nothing, admitting my doctrine to be true, and his 
own to be false ?* 

We now come to the second class of objections, 
which are supposed to have some weight against the 
evidence adducced that Gehenna is not used to eoopress 
a place of endless misery. These we shall attempt 
to consider, without much regard to the order in which 
they are brought forward. . 

It has been objected, that a very great change took 
place in the language of the Jews during the captivity 
in Babylon, and that it would be wrong to interpret 
words in the New Testament according to the sense 
which they have in the Old.. It has been thought that 
during the captivity, the flebrew language ceased to b$ 
vernacular among the Jews, and that they brought back 
from Babylon the Chaldaic instead of it. This has 
been urged against the views we have given of Ge- 
henna, and in favor of its meaning a place oi endless mis- 
ery. In reply to this, it ought to be noticed, that the 

* According to this objection, Universalists mast go to hell, because 
their opinion of God's character is too good ; and others ^o to heRveo, fafl^ 
cause they believe him Qot so good a being, as UniTersaliits* 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 305 

supposed fact on which this ohjection is founded, is dis- 
puted by the learned. Mr. Parkhurst, in his Lexicon, 
on the word Ebrais^ p. 181, thus writes : — " A strange 
notion originally derived from the Jewish rabbins, the 
descendants of those who crucified the Lord of Life hath 
prevailed, and is but too generally received, that, during 
the Babylonish captivity, the Hebrew language ceased 
to be vernacular among the Jews, and it is pretended 
that they brought back the Chaldee or Babylonish, in- 
stead of it ; and, in consequence, that the language 
commonly spoken in Judea in our Savior's time was not 
Hebrew, but Syriac, or Syro-Chaldaic. But 

" 1st, Prejudice apart, is it probable that any people 
should lose their native language in a captivity of no 
longer than seventy years continuance ? (Comp. Ezra 
iii. 12, Hag. iii. 2. ) And is it not still less probable 
that a people so tenacious of their law as the Jews, 
should yet be so negligent of their language, wherein 
that law, both religious and civil was contained, fts to 
fiuffer such a loss, and exchange their mother tongue for 
that of their detested and idolatrous enemies ; espe- 
cially since they had been assured by the prophet Jere- 
miah, chap. XXV. 11, 12;xxvii. 22; xxix. 10. (comp. 
Dan. ix. 2,) that after a captivity of no more then sev- 
enty years they should be restored to their own land ? 
But 

" 2dly, It appears from Scripture, that under the cap* 
tivity the Jews retained not only their language, but 
their manner of writing it, or the form and fashion of 
their letters. Else, what meaneth Esth. viii. 9, where 
we read^that the decree of Ahasuerus, or Artaxerxes 
Longimanus, was written unto every province accord- 
ing to the writing thereof, and unto every people after 
their language, and to the Jews according to their writ" 
ingand according to their language 1 (Comp. Esther 
i. Ezra iv. 7. ) And let it be remarked, that this de- 
cree was issued, according to Prideaux, Connect, part 

26* 



306 AN INQ,UIRY INTO 

i. book 5, five years after Ezra had obtained his com- 
mission for his return to Jerusalem with those of his 
nation, of which see Ezra vii. 

" 3dly, ' Ezekiel, who prophesied during the cap- 
tivity, to the Jews in Chaldea, wrote and published his 
prophecies in Hebrew.' Leland's Reflections on lord 
bolinbroke's Letters, p. 229, 3d edit, where see more. 

" 4thly, The prophets who flourished soon after the 
return of the Jews to their own country, namely Haggai 
and Zechariah, prophesied to them in Hebrew, and so 
did Malachi, who seems to have delivered his prophecy 
about an hundred years after that event. Now if 
Chaldee was the vernacular language of the Jews after 
the captivity, what tolerable reason can be assigned why 
those inspired n»en addressed not only the priests and 
great men, but als6 the body of the people, in Hebrew, 
and did not, as Daniel and Ezra have sometimes^ done, 
use the Chaldee language ? It is I think, by no means 
sufficient to answer, with bishop Walton, that they did 
this because the rest of the sacred books were written 
in Hebrew ; for if there were any force in this reason, it 
would prove that Daniel also and Ezra ought to have 
written in Hebrew only. 

" 5thly, Nehemiah, who was governor of the Jews 
about a hundred years after their return from Babylon, 
not only wrote his book in Hebrew, but in chap. xiii. 23, 
24, complains that some of the Jews^ during his absence, 
had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of M oab, 
and that their children could not speak ihurit the Jews 
langv^agey but spake a mixed tongue. Now ihurit is 
Hebrew, as it appears from all the other passages in 
which it occurs, viz. 2 Kings xviii. 26, 28. 2 Chron. 
xxxii. 18. Isai. xxxvi. 11, 13. But how impertinent 
is the remark, and how foplish the complaint of Nehe- 
miah appears to be, that the children of sovm Jews, 
who had taken foreigners for wives, could not speak pure 
Hebrew^ if tliat tongue had ceased to be vernacular 



THS WORD GEHENNA. 307 

among the people in general a hundred years before 
that period ? * So that (to use the words of the learned 
Spearman, to whom I am greatly indebted in the above 
observations,) this very text of Nehemiah, I think, re- 
fiites the received supposition of the Hebrew being lost 
in the Babylonish captivity.' 

" 6thly, It is highly absurd and unreasonable to sup- 
pose that the writers of the New Testament used the 
term Hebrew to signify a different language from that 
which the Grecizing Jews denoted by that name ; but 
the language which those Jews called Hebrew after the 
Babylonish captivity, was pot Syriac or Chaldee, but the 
same in which the law and the prophets were written. 
This appears from the prologue to Ecclesiasticus, which, 
according to Prideaux, was penned by the grandson of 
Jesus about 132 years before Christ ; for he there ob- 
serves, that 'the same things uttered in Hebrew and trans- 
lated into another tongue, have not the same force in 
them ; and not only these things ( this book of Eccle- 
siasticus) but the law itself, and the prophets, and the 
rest of tne books have no small difference, when they 
are spoken in their own language. 

" Lastly, It may be worth adding, that Josephus who 
frequently uses the expressions ten ebraion dialeJcteUy 
glottan teru ebraion^ ebraisti, for the language in which 
Moses wrote (see inter, al. Ant. lib. i. cap. i. ^ I, 2. 
comp. lib. X. cap. i.<§> 2. tells us, De Bell. lib. vi. cap. 
ii. |> 1. that towards the conclusion of the siege of 
Jerusalem he addressed not only John, the commander 
of the Zealots, but tois pollois^ the (^Jewish) multitude y 
who were with him, ebraizon in the Hebrew tongue^ 
which Was therefore the common language of the Jews 
at that time, i. e. about forty years after our Savior's 
death. Comp. Ant. lib. xviii. cap. vii. <§> 10. 

" On the whole, I conclude that the Jews did not ex- 
change the Hebrew for the Chaldee language at the cap- 
tivity, and that the terms Ebrais, Ebraikosy Ebraisti^ 



308 AN INQUIRY INTO 

in the New Testament, denote, not the Syriac, or 
Syro-Chaldaic, but the Hebrew language, commonly so 
called ; though I readily grant that this language, es- 
pecially as it is spoken by the Galileans (See Mark xiv. 
73. Math. xxvi. 73. and under Galilaios,) had in our 
Savior's time deflected from its ancient purity, as partic- 
ularly appears, I think, from the words Abba^ Aketdamay 
Boanerges^ Gogothuy which see in their proper places." 
We give this just as we find it, and leave those who 
choose to investigate the subject to determine it. But 
in whatever way this point is determined, we are una- 
ble to perceive its bearing against the views we have 
advanced about Gehenna. Admitting that a great 
change took place in the language of the Jews during 
their captivity, if the Jews by this word, did not un* 
derstana a place of eternal misery from their Scriptures 
before they went to Babylon, yet understood it so after 
they returned, it follows, that this notion was learned 
during the captivity. This is no honor to the doctrine, 
nor is it authority for a moment to be regarded. How- 
ever great the change in the language of the Jews was 
during the captivity, we think it has been proved that 
our Lord uses the term Gehenna, in the sense it was used 
by the prophet Jeremiah, as an emblem of temporal 
calamities. Until this is disproved, and it is established, 
that this change in the Jewish language gave such a dif- 
ferent sense to this word as the objector supposes, it does 
not deserve a serious consideration. 

But though the idea of a place of future misery was 
learned by the Jews from the heathen, yet tbeir giving 
it the name Gehenna was of a later date. This is evi- 
dent from considering, that Nehemiah, Ezra, nor any 
Old Testament writer, after the captivity, ever spoke 
of this doctrine, or applied this word to it. The fact is, 
that whatever change, either the ideas or the language 
^ of the Jews underwent in Babylon, there is no proof to 
be derived from the Old Testament, that Gehenna was 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 809 

changed in sense from being an emblem of temporal pun- 
ishment, to being made an emblem of endless misery. 
We presume no person will pretend, that any proof can 
be produced of this. Lp t us then be informed upon 
what rational and Scriptural grounds, this term was so 
differently understood by the inspired writers of the New 
from those of the Old Testament. There must be a 
conscious lack of evidence, to urge the change which the 
Jewish language unde^vent in Babylon as any proof 
that our Lord used the term Gehenna to express a place 
of endless punishment for the wicked. It is rather ex-* 
ploding the doctrine than proving it, to have recourse to 
such means in establishing it. 

It has been urged as an objection — that though the 
Targuins are not good authority to prove any doctrine^ 
yet they are sufficient testimony to shoWy in what sense 
Gehenna was used among the Jews about our Savior^s 
time, and it is evident from them, that it expressed a 
place of endless misery. But this argument, is founded 
m the niistake, that the Targums were written before 
our Lord's day. We think this has been shown above. 
But supposing this was the feense of Gehenna, then, it is 
yery evident the Jews could not understand.it in this 
sense when they read the Old Testament Scriptures. 
How they understood it when they read the Scriptures 
is one thing, and how they used it in common discourse, 
and in making all the Gentiles fit fuel for the fire of hell, 
is another. If they gave it such an application, this is 
no proof that our Lord used it in the same manner. 
If they learned the notion, that Hades was a place of 
endless misery, among the heathen, and applied the term 
Gehenna to it, yea, consigned over all the Gentiles to 
its punishment, does this prove that our Lord either 
adopted this notion of theirs, or used Gehenna in this 
sense? That he should adopt this popular sense of the 
word, is far from being probable, and that he used it as 
Jeremiah had done, as an emblem of temporal punish* 



310 AN INi^UIRY INTO 

ment^ we think has been proved. Can any man rea- 
sonably believe, that our Lord used Gehenna m a sense 
seemingly invented out of enmity to the Gentiles, and 
laid aside its use in the Old Testament ? Besides ; and 
what ought to settle this question, the apostles so far 
from making the Gentiles or any others fit fuel for hell 
Sre, never used the word in speaking to them, or about 
them. 

It is further objected; — admitting, say some, all 
that you have advanced about Gehenna or hell to be 
true, yet the doctrine of eternal misery to the wicJced 
can be established from other parts of Scripture, If 
this be true, many a man might have saved himself a 
great deal of labor, in writing and preaching, and many 
books on this subject are mere waste paper, for they are 
written expressly to establish the very contrary. If this 
ground is taken we shall be very happy, for it is greatly 
abridging the ground of debate on this subject. Am I 
then to understand, that all the texts which speak about 
Gehenna are abandoned, as not teaching the doctrine 
of endless misery ? If they are, it is to be lamented, 
that they have been so long quoted as the principal 
proofs of this doctrine, and thus perverted from their 
true meaning. My labor at any rate, is iiot lost. If 
I am instrumental, in rescuing so many parts of God's 
word from such a misapplication of them, I shall have 
the consolation that I have not lived, or written in vain. 
A correct understanding of God's word, is to me the 
jSrst thing in religion. There can be no real religion, 
in the perversion of that blessed book. If all such texts 
are relinquished as proof, we hope we shall hear no 
more about hell as a place of endless misery. Not only 
the texts, but the very word hell must be laid aside, as 
inapplicable to the subject. But if this is done we shall 
feel some impatience, until we learn by what other 
name it is called in Scripture. 

It h?is beep objected to my views — that by Gehenna^ 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 311 

a STATE arid not a place of future endless punishment 
is intended, and that I have dwelt top much on the idea 
of its being a place. In reply to this we observe — 
1st, That before this objection is urged against me, such 
as hold to the doctrine of endless misery, ought to give 
up speaking of it as a place of punishment. It is always 
represented as a place, in writing, in preaching, and in 
conversation. Let the writer or the preacher be nam- 
ed, who does not speak of it as a place but as a state. 
Dr. Campbell, Edwards, and all other writers that I 
have ever seen or heard of, speak of it as a place. Yea, 
some have even pretended to tell where it is located, 
and have described also the nature of its punishment, 
and the wretched condition of its inhabitants in a very 
circumstantial mannfer. There can be no reasonable 
objection brought against my speaking of it as a place, 
until such persons give up this mode of speaking about 
it themselves. But#if any uneasiness is felt, as if the 
doctrine was in danger, in speaking of hell as ^ place of 
endless punishment, we have no objection that they 
adopt the term state. Only let us fairly understand one 
another, and let them not blame mc for speaking about 
it as they do thenjselves, until they have made this al- 
teration. 

2d, Supposing then the word state to be substituted 
for the word place, we ask, what advantage is gamed 
in favor of the doctrine of endless misery ? How does 
this new word, shield it from what has been advanced 
against it ? If it affords it any asylum, we confess our in- 
ability to perceive it. We are equally at a loss to per- 
ceive, how it invalidates a single fact or argument, which 
we have advanced, in proof that Gehenna or hell in the 
New Testament does not teach tha doctrine of endless 
misery. If we are mistaken, let our mistake be point- 
ed out. 

3d, We should feel obliged to the persons, who wish 
to abandon the word place, to describe to us what thej 



312 AN INQUIRY INTO 

mean by state, and endless punishment in this state, 
without any idea of place. We hope they will be kind 
enough to inform us also, why they wish to shift their 
ground from place to state, and whether this is coming 
nearer to the Scripture mode of speaJcing of their doc- 
trine ; or, is it with a view to perplex the subject, and 
evade the arguments urged against it? Men who 
would lay aside the good old way of speaking of heU, 
must have some reasons for doing this. We. wish to 
know them. 

4th, We have attempted to show, that Gehenna 
spoken of in the N-ew Testament, is in reference to the 
same punishment, of which the prophet Jeremiah had 
spoken long before, concerning the Jewish nation. He 
had made Gehenna or the valley of Hinnom^ an emblem 
of this punishment. In speaking therefore of Gehen- 
na as a place, it was not my views which required this 
so much, as in opposing the common ideas entertained 
on this subject. This was rather a thing I could not 
avoid, than from any thing in my views which required 
such a mode of speaking in establishing them. WhjT" 
then blame me for what they do themselves, and which, 
their own views of this doctrine forces upon me in con- 
troverting them ? 

5th, It is allowed that heaven is a place as well as a-- 
slate. Buck, in his Theologic^il Dictionary, vol. 1. p, 
330. says — ^i Heaven is to be considered a place, 
well as a state ; it is expressly so termed in Scripture* 
John xiv. 2, 3 : and the existence of the body ol 
Christ, and those of Enoch and Elijah, is a furthier^ 
proof of it. Yea, if ^t be not a place, where can those- 
bodies be ? And where will the bodies of the saint^^ 
exist after the resurrection ?'* I appeaj to all the world^» 
if hell is not as generally spoken of as a place, as heavenc: 
is. And substituting the word hell for heaven in thii 
quotation, the same things may be said of the wicked^ 
as is said of the righteous. I only ask in the languages 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 313 

of this quotation — " Where will the bodies of the wick- 
ed exist after the resurrection j if bell be not a place ? 
For all who believe this doctrine say they are to be 
raised. 

6th, The popular views of Gehenna or hell, not only 
represent it as a place, but the Bible is thought to 
countenance this view of the siibject. It is very cer- 
tain, that the Scriptures do not mention hell as a state^ 
and do not guard us against supposing it to be a place y 
as this objection would have us beUeve concerning it. 
All past orthodoxy y would denounce the man as heret- 
ical, who would insinuate that hell was not a place, but 
only a state. And must I now be condemned as he- 
retical, for not speaking of hell as a state but as a 
place ? * ^ 

It has been objected — " that the words spoken by our 
Lord, Math, xxiii. 33. to the unbelieving Jews were 
prophetic, and that by the damnation of hell, he might 
simply mean sows punishment after death, without any 
reference to the place or the nature of the punishment, ^^ 
On this objection we remark 

1st, That it has been shown in considering this pas- 
sage above, that our Lord's words are not a prediction, 
but simply a threatening of temporal punishment to the 
Jews. But this objector takes it for granted that our 
Lord's words are prophetic. It is not assertions and 
suppositions, but proof that can avail any thing on this 
subject. If the objector says, that by the damnation of 
hell, our Lord might sipiply mean somie punishment af- 
ter death, without any reference to the place or the na- 
ture of the punishment, let him produce some evidence 
of this. We think, we have shown from this text and its 
context, that our Lord had no reference to a punishment 
after death, but to the temporal punishment coming on 
the Jewish nation. Let the objector disprove what we 
lave said, and let him show from the context of this 
place, how bis supposition can be supported from it. 

27 



314 AN INQUIRY INTO 



• 



We may suppose any thing ; but if unsupported by ev- 
idence, ought mere suppositions to be regarded ? 

2d, If the objector can prove, that the punishment 
mentioned in this passage is after death, we really think 
that the place where It is to be sufered is called Ge- 
henna, by our Lord. Why he should think the pun- 
ishment to be after death, and yet have any difficulty as 
to its location, or the nature of the punishment, we 
cannot conceive. The context of this place, surely 
gives him no reason to conclude, that the punishment 
is after death, but the reverse. Ahd if it does not de- 
jTermine also the nature of the punishment ta be tem- 
poral, and that which was to come on the Jewish nation 
during that generation, it will be difficult to determine 
any thing from the Bible. If the punishment, of 
which our Lord spoke in this passage, be after death, it 
will not be difficult to show that every punishment men- 
tioned in the Bible, is after death. 

It is further objected — if the mere silence of the Old 
Testament, concerning Gehenna being a place ofend-^ 
less misery, is of any force against it, tviU it not be of 
equal force against the doctrine of future existence, 
the resurrection of the dead, and many other thiiigs^ 
which are not revealed, in the Old Testament 7 In an" 
swer to this, we remark 

1st, That we have never laid much stress on the si^ 
lence of the Old Testament, respecting Grehenna not: 
being a place of endless misery. We have decidedljT 
expressed our willingness to believe the doctrine, if it: 
can be proved fi-om either Testament. We have said, 
and we now say, that it is somewhat remarkable that 
such a doctrine as hell torments should not be taught 
in the Old Testament. 

2d, The objector proceeds on the presumpticm, that 
future existence and the resurrection of the dead, wese 
doctrines not revealed under the Old Testament. But 
tins he has got to prove before his objection can invali* 



THE WOBD GEHENNA. 315 

date any thing which I have said, drawn from the si- 
lence of the Old Testament, to prove that Gehenna or 
bell is not a place of endless misery. If he proves, that 
B life of happiness after death, was unknown under the 
Old Testament, it is freely admitted, that my argument, 
drawn from its silence about future punishment, is de- 
stroyed. But if future happiness was known, and fu- 
ture eternal misery not known, how stands the argu- 
ment ? It is easily seen that it has considerable force, 
in favoi* of the views which I have advanced. 

3d, That both future existence and the resurrection 
of the dead were in some degree known under the old 
dispensation, we think can be proved. Our Lord blamed 
the Jews for not inferring this from the words of God 
to Moses at the bush. Paul in the 11th of Hebrews 
shows, we think, decidedly, what was the faith of the 
ancient patriarchs 'about this. Though life and incor- 
ruption were brought to light by the gospel, yet, if this 
were the proper place, we think it could be shown, that 
it was not the doctrine but the facty which was brought 
to light. But can the objector prove the contrary, and 
can he show, that the doctrine of hell torments was 
brought to light by the gospel ? Unless he can do this, 
what I have said about the silence of the Old Testa- 
ment respecting hell torments, remains unafiected by 
this objection. 

It has been objected — since paradise in the Old Tes- 
tcanent merely referred to temporal happiness, hut in 
the New is used for heavenly blessedness, why may not 
also Gehenna, used in the Old Testament for tempo* 
ral misery, be used in the New for eternal punishment 1 
If the objector thinks so, let him show from the use of 
the words paradise and Gehenna, in the Old and New 
Testaments, that this is actually the case. To admit 
things at this may be rate, is nothing to the purpose, 
and^ especially on a subject of such importance as the 
one in question. Do we find a place cdf future eternal 



316 AN INQUIRY INTO 

happiness and a place of eternal misery equally and 
clearly revealed in Scripture ? This is the first thing 
to be settled. Were both of these revealed, there 
would be nothing strange that paradise and Gehenna 
should be used by the inspired writers in speaking of 
them. But is this true, as it respects a place of eternal 
misery ? No, we do not find, upon looking at all the 
places in the New Testament where the words paradise 
and Gehenna are used, that similar things are said of 
Gehenna as a place of future punishment after death, 
as is said of paradise as a place of happiness after 
death ? Let our readere judge, if there be any affinity 
between paradise and Gehenna, and if these two worcb 
are used to express future eternal blessedness and mis- 
ery alike, in Scripture. The objector takes it for grant- 
ed, that paradise is used in the Old Testament. But 
in this he is mistaken, for the word does not occur 
there. Paradise is not even a Hebrew word, but is al- 
lowed to be Persian. Had the objecftor noticed, that 
this word is not used in the Old Testament, it might 
have prevented such an objection being made against 
my views. But as this objection is founded in a mis- 
take, it did not deserve any consideration. 

It has been also objected — the reason why John said 
nothing about Gehenna was, that he Was the beloved 
disciple : and the reason why ail the apostles are silent 
about it is, they wished to save men by love, and not by 
the terror of hell torments. This objection has some 
comfort in it, even if it does not convince us of our er« 
ror. In reply, we may remark, 

1st, If the reason, why John and the apostles said 
nothing about Gehenna or hell torments, was, as is assert- 
ed, because they wished to save men by love, it would 
seem to be the reason, why modem preachers preach 
hell torments, because they wish to save them by ter- 
ror and not by love. How then does the objector ao* 
count for, and is he prepared to defend, the differenco 



THE WORD 6EH£NNA. 317 

between apostolic and modern preaching ? This objec- 
tion agrees with my views so far, that God makes men 
obedient by love, and not by terror. So far well. 

2d, It should seem from this objection, that the more 
we become apostolic, or like John, in love, this will lead 
us to say nothing about hell torments to others. If we 
can only like John, be beloved disciples, and be like the 
the apostles in our tempers and dispositions, we shall 
not mention endless misery in our preaching or conver- 
sation to the world around us, though we may be full 
in the belief, that they are all in the downward road to 
it. For 

3d J This objection, notwithstanding all the love in 
John and the apostles, and their desire to save men by 
love "and not by terror, supposed Gehenna or hell a 
place of endless misery for the wicked. The objec- 
tion, proceeds on the supposition that John and all the 
apostles believed this, yet said nothing about it because 
they wished to save men by love rather than tenor. If 
it is alleged, that in the places where our Lord used 
the term Gehenna, he meant a place of endless misery, 
John and all the apostles differed from him about this, 
for it seems he wished to save men, yea, even his own 
disciples by terror of hell torments. The objector seems 
to approve of their conduct, and thinks this was a lovely 
disposition in them ; it showed love to the persona 
whom they addressed, in saying nothing to them about 
hell. Let no man say that this is love. What ! John 
and the rest of the apostles, love men's souls, and be- 
lieved them exposed to endless misery in hell yet never 
once mention their danger to them? All will agree 
with me in saying, that this is any thing but love or faith- 
fulness to the souls of men. 

It is fiirther objected — if Gehenna signifies vrrath to 
come, it was natural to speak to Jews of endless misery 
by the former, and to Gentiles by the latter mode of 
expression. Why it was natural to speak to Jews of 

27* 



318 AN INQUIRY INTO 

eternal misery by the one expression and to Gentiles 
by the other, we are not informed. But 1st, Allowing 
that this is the case, can it be proved that Gehenna^ 
and the phrase wrath to come, are used in Scriptiure to 
express either to Jews or Gentiles endless punishment 
in a future state ? We have shown that Gehenna is not 
so used in Scripture, and we think can show that the 
expression wrath to come, does not refer to a future 
state of existence. Wrath, yea, even the wrath of God, 
may be wrath to come, and yet be wholly confined to 
the present world. We think it will be difficiih to prove 
that the wrath to come, mentioned in Scripture, had any 
reference to a state of punishment after death. 2d, 
Upon examination, we think it will be found, that the 
phrase, wrath to come, refers to temporal punishment, 
to Jews as well as Gentiles ; but as the damnation or 
punishment of hell or Gehenna, had a particular refer- 
ence to the temporal miseries of the Jews at the de- 
utruction of their city and temple, we never find it 
spoken of to the Gentiles. 

It has also been objected — that if my views of Ge- 
henna be correct, my interpretation of the passages 
where our Lord spoke to his disciples concerning it, 
go to show, that he was more concerned for their^ 
temporal safety than their eternal welfare. This ob- 
jection, to some, will appear more plausible than many 
others which we have stated. But in answer to it, we 
remark 1st, That this objection assumes the question 
in debate, the whole of the present Inquiry being to 
prove, " that the eternal welfare of the disciples was not 
in danger." This objection goes on the presumption, 
that the disciples were in danger of eternal misery, and 
that according to my interpretation of the passages in 
which our Lord spoke of Gehenna, he was more con- 
cerned about their temporal safety, than he was about 
their deUverance from eternal misery. The objector 
has then got to disprove the evidence I have adduced, 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 319 

showing that Gehenna does not refei: to a place of end- 
less misery, and to establish his own views by evidence 
drawn from the New Testament that this is its mean- 
ing. 2d, That our Lord should be more concerned for 
the temporal safety of his disciples, than for that of the 
unbelieving Jews, many reasons might be assigned. 
They were his disciples, and their temporal safety 
could not be a matter of indifference to him. Their 
temporal safety also made manifest his character, in 
not destroying the righteous with the wicked. And 
was not this very sparing them, as a father spareth his 
only son that serveth him, a fulfilment of what God bad 
spoken? See Mai. iii. 17, 18. and comp. chap. iv. 
But above all, was it not a matter of importance, that 
our Lord should show concern for the temporal safety 
of his disciples, as they were to be witnesses of his 
resurrection, and the heralds of his salvation to the ends 
of the earth ? All these ,and other things which could 
be mentioned, account for our Lord's solicitude about 
the temporal safety of his disciples, without supposing 
that their souls were in danger of endless punishment 
in Gehenna. 

It is further objected — if there be no such thing as heU 
a place of misery in a future state, yet seeing it was 
believed both among Jews and Gentiles, that there was 
certainly such a place, why is it that neither Christ 
nor his apostles, ever took occasion to contradict this 
false notion, but on the contrary expressed themselves 
in appearance at least, so much in favor of this opin- 
ion, that a great part of mankind from that time to this 
have supposed it fully taught in the New Testament. 
Some remarks are made in chap. i. sec, 3. which meet 
this objection. We offer a few additional remarks here 
in reply to it. 1st, Then we ask, how came they by 
such a belief. It was not from the Old Testament, for 
it is allowed that it does not teach such a doctrine. In 
chap. i. sect. 3. it has been shown, that the Jews learn- 



320 AN INQUIRY INTO 

ed this doctrine from their intercourse with the heathen. 
This made such a belief common to both Jews and Gen- 
tiles, and not that it was common to both, from divine rev- 
elation. 2d, But the point of this objection lies in the 
following things. It is asked, — " why is it that neither 
Christ nor his apostles, ever took occasion to contradict 
this false notion that hell was a place of misery ?'* In 
answer to this we ask in our turn — "If Christ and his 
apostles believed this doctrine common to both Jews 
and Gentiles, why did they not avail themselves of this 
universally received notion to inculcate and enforce this 
doctrine ?" To have taught it, could have given no of- 
fence to either of them ; yet we find them silent on the 
subject, that Gehenna or even Hades is such a place. 
The only exception to this, is the parable of the rich 
man, which has been shown not even to teach an inter- 
mediate state of punishment. If this popular behef then, 
was true, and believed to be so by the Savior and his 
apostles, why did they not avail themselves of it, and en- 
force it on both Jews and Gentiles ? 3d, If we are to 
conclude, that because Christ and his apostles never ex- 

Sressly contradicted this false notion, common to both 
ews and Gentiles, and that they by their silence sanc- 
tioned it as true, it follows, that all the false notions en- 
tertained by Jews and Gentiles not expressly contra- 
dicted by them are true. But we presume few would 
admit this, though it is a natural consequence from this 
objection. When any man will fairly make out, that 
their not contradicting expressly all the false, Jewish 
and heathen notions, is proof that those about which 
they are silent are true, we shall admit the one in ques- 
tion to be of the number. But another part of the 
point of this objection is, that — " on the contrary thev 
expressed themselves, in appearance at least so mucn 
in favor of this opinion, that a great part jof mankind 
from that time to this have supposed it fully taught in 
the New Testament." In reply, we would a^ in 



r 

E 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 321 

what parts of the New Testament do we find this? 
Not surely from those parts which speak either of 
Hades or Gehenna. The places where our Lord used 
those words, have been considered, and we think it 
haa been shown, that in none of them did he teach such 
a doctrine. His apostles never once named Gehenna, 
nor «ven intimate that either Hades or Gehenna refer- 
red to a place of endless misery. If our Lord and his 
apostles, did in appearance, speak of such a place of 
misery, some other texts must be referred to than those 
ia which the words Hades and Gehenna are found. But 
it is supposed that Jesus Christ and his apostles express- 
ed themselves in appearance, at least, so much in favor 
of this opinion, " that a great part of mankind from that 
time to this have supposed it fully taught in the New 
Testament." It will not be denied, that men from that 
time to this have supposed Christ and his apostles to 
teach doctrines, which they are now coming to be con- 
vinced are not taught in the Bible. That the one we 
have been considering is not of that number, ought not 
to be taken for granted. It is admitted by all, that a 
great many Jewish and heathen notions, were very early 
incorporated with the doctrine of Christ and his apostles. 
Past ages, have furnished but too much evidence, that 
the Scriptures have been used to countenance almost 
every opinion. Closer attention to the oracles of God 
has exploded many of them, and increased attention, 
may expose the falsehood of many more. That hell, 
a place of endless, misery for the wicked, is an opinion 
which originated with the heathen we have shown 
above ; and have also attempted to show, that those 
texts on which this doctrine has been founded, have 
be^n greatly misunderstood. If we have erred in inter- 
pretmg them, let this be pointed out. Until this is done, 
and it is shown that the doctrine of hell torments did not 
originate in the heathenism, but in the authority of God, 
Qur views st^ad uqshaken by this objection^ 



322 • AN INqUlRT INTO 

We find it also objected — if there be noplace of pun- 
ishment in a future state, prepared for such as die in 
unbelief how is this part of mankind to be disposed of 
after death, in what part of the universe is their abode 
to be assigned them ? Not in heaven ; for God is rep^ 
resented in Scripture as bringing with him from thence 
at the resurrection of the dead, only those that " sleep 
in Jesu^^' and of all the dead only " the dead in Christ," 
are said to ascend thither with him to dwell forever vnth 
the Lord, Not in Gehenna or hell; for according to 
your views, there is no such place in the world to come. 
On this objection let it be remarked — 1st, Whatever 
abode we assign such persons in a future state, we think 
we have shown, that God does not assign to them as 
their abode, Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, or even Gehenna. 
If God has not assigned to them such a place, it is rash 
in us to assert this without his authority. If he should 
leave them without any abode either as to happiness or 
misery, there we ought to leave them. Dr. Campbell 
as ve have seen, declares, that Hades is at last to be 
destroyed, and accordingly he assigns them an ever- 
lasting abode in Gehenna, but we think without any 
warrant from Scripture. If then we have proved, that 
hell or Gehenna is not the everlasting abode which God 
has assigned them, and seeing the objector thinks that 
heaven is not to be their abode, we ask him in turn 
how they are to be disposed of? If he denies that 
heaven is to be their abode, we think it has been shown 
that hell is not said to be their abode. If it is said, be- 
cause they are not to go to heaven they mv^t go to hell; 
we may reply, because they are not to go to hell they 
mu^t go to heaven. 2d, The objection states that their 
abode is not to be in heaven, and, the reasons assigned 
are — " For God is represented in Scripture as bringing 
with him from thence at the resurrection of the dead, 
only those that ' sleep in Jesus ;' and of all the dead, 
only * the dead in Christ' are said to ascend thither with 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 323 

him to dwell forever with the Lord." This refers to 1 
Thess. iv. 13. &c. on the whole of which passage I 
shall make the following remarks. 

1st, The grand distinction in this passage, is be- 
tween the dead and those found alive on the eartli at 
the period referred to. The passage is alike silent how 
the wicked dead and those wicked found alive are to 
be disposed of; for not a word is said about the wick- 
ed. ,The persons said to be asleep or dead, verse 13. 
and those which sleep in Jesus, verse 14. and also as 
asleep, verse 15. and the dead in Christ who shall rise 
first, verse 16. all refer to the same persons. They re- 
fer to the dead, and we presume are exclusively confin- 
ed by the objector to believers. On the other hand the 
we, who are said to be alive and remain, mentioned 
verses 15 — 17. must also be confined exclusively to be- 
lievers, then found alive on the earth. These shall 
not prevent, or go before them who are asleep. Be- 
fore they shall ascend, the dead in Christ shall rise 
first, and both shall ascend together to meet the Lord 
in the air. These last, we must confine to all living 
believers found on the earth, for if we extend it to all 
living, indiscriminately, why not the first also to all the 
dead indiscriminately ? But if we take into view the 
15th chapter of 1st Corinthians, and especially firom 
verse 51 — 58. which seems to treat of the same sub- 
ject, all the dead seems to be included. Compare also 
verses 20—22, 31, 35, 42 — 45. 

2d. It is evident that the passage makes no distinc- 
tion between two classes of people to be raised at this 
period, righteous and wicked. Either, then, this pas- 
sage does not teach us anything concerning the wick- 
ed, or they are included with the others here men- 
tioned. If they are not, and their resurrection is no 
where else spoken of, the inference would be that the^ 
are not raised at all. But in some other places their 
resurrection is asserted. See Acts xxiv. 15. If Paul 



324 AN INQUIRY INTO 

then in the passage, does not include all dead and alive, 
il is rather singular, that he should say nothing about 
the resurrection of the wicked, or how those left on the 
earth are to be disposed of, after all the others have 
left it to meet the Lord in the air. If he did not see 
meet to consign them over to hell forever, nor inform 
us how they are. to be disposed of otherwise, the ob- 
jector ought to prove, that hell is to be their everlasting 
abode. If I am mistaken in my views of Gehenna or 
hell, I wish to see my error pointed out. If it is to be 
their abode, I am in a great mistake. But if this pas- 
sage is allowed to speak only of believers, yet there are 
others, which do not accord with what the objector 
seems to draw from it. According to this objection, 
none but such as died believers in Christ, are to be 
finally happy in heaven. This at once excludes all the 
heathen world, and a great part of what is called the 
Christian world. But how does all this agree with the 
promises of God, that in Christ all the families of the 
earth are to be blessed. That the heathen are given 
him for his inheritance, and the uttermost ends of the 
earth for his possession. That God hath reconciled all 
things to himself by Jesus Christ. That he is Lord of 
all. Lord both of the dead and of the living. That ev- 
ery knee shall bow t6 him and every tongue confess. 
But see among others the following passages which we 
think it will be difficult to reconcile with the objection 
urged from this passage. 1 Cor. xvi. 24 — 29. Rom. 
V. 12—21. Rev. V. 13. Philp. ii. 9—12. In short, 
how could it with any propriety be said, that the devil, 
the works of the devil, and death, the last enemy are 
all destroyed, if this objection is founded in truth ? 

But the whole force of this objection, seems to rest 
on the expression that is here used concerning the per- 
sons who are to be raised, that they sleep in Jesus. 
The term sleep k used for death, and we think it can be 
proved that it is so used concerning good and bad* It 



TH£ WORD GEHENNA. 325 

is then the words in Jesus, on which the whole depends* 
Now we would ask, if even those who died in ignorance 
and unbelief concerning him, are persons for whom he 
died ; for whose sins he was a propitiation, and that he 
is not to give up the kingdom until all things are sub- 
dj|Bd ; yea, such persons are to be raised by him ; may 
itrot be said that they sleep in him ? 

But there is one thing in this passage which I would 
notice, and with it conclude my, remarks on this objec- 
tion. In verse 13. the apostle, addressing the Thessa- 
lonians, says — " I would not have you to be ignorant, 
brethren, concerning them who are asleep, that ye sor- 
row not even as others who have no hope." Who were 
asleep^ let mk ask, and concerning whom the apostle 
wished them, "not to sorrow as those who have no 
hope?" According to the view taken in the objection 
they were only behevers ; or believing relatives who 
had died. But why should they sorrow so much for 
them, and be told not to sorrow hke the heathen, whose 
grief at the death of their relatives was excessive ? If 
we confine those who are represented as asleep, to be- 
lievers only, it should seem that the Thessalonians had 
even little hope as to them, and went to excess in grief 
and needed to be cautioned against it. But if we con- 
sider the apostle as exhorting them against excessive 
grief at the death of their relations, who even died hea- 
thens, it not only obviates this difficulty, but their minds 
are consoled by the apostle in the passage concerning 
them. To understand it otherwise, would represent the 
Thessalonians as being grieved only at the death of their 
believing relations, and no way concerned for the future 
condition of such of them as died heathens. 

Such are the objections, of any importance, which 
we have heard urged against the views which we have 
advanced concerning hell or Gehenna. Some of them, 
we frankly admit, a^re too trifling to have been noticed. 
After a consideration of them we must say, that not one 

28 



326 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



of them, nor all of them taken together, have even led 
• us to suspect, that what we have said concerning hell, 
is contrary to Scripture. But let our readers consider 
them, and judge for themselves. 



SECTION VII. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



If the sentiments advanced in the preceding pages, 
have been attended to by the reader, he no doubt per- 
ceives, that the conclusion which results from them is, 
that — there is no place of endless misery taught in 
Scripture, as is commonly believed by most Christians, 
This we admit to be the fair inference which results 
from what has been stated, unless it can be proved, that 
such a place of endless misery is revealed in Scripture 
under some other name than Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, or 
Gehenna. It is our deliberate and candid opinion, that 
these words are never used in Scripture to express such 
a place of misery. We have laid the evidence on which 
this opinion has been formed, before our readers, and 
they are left to judge for themselves, as to its truth or 
falsehood. Some, no doubt, will condemn what we 
have said, without giving the evidence produced a pa- 
tient hearing. The popular, but senseless, cry of heresy, 
is sure to be rung in people's ears, to deter them from 
paying any attention to the subject. From such per- 
sons we expect nothing but noise and abuie, for they 
have no desire that their faith should stand in the wis- 
dom of God. But there are others, whose good sense, 
judgment, and piety we respect, who, no doubt will 
will conclude, that my inquiry has ended in a great and 
fatal error* To all such I would offer a few remarks, 



CONCLUDING REMABKS. 337 

in vindication of myself, against this sentence of con- 
demnation. 

1st, Let those who thus condemn me, consider, if 
they do not take for granted, the grand question which 
has been under discussion. Do they not first deter- 
mine in their own minds that hell is a place of endless 
misery, and because my investigation has not brought 
me to this conclusion, they conclude I must be in a great 
error ? But why ought not such persons to admit, that 
they may be in an error on this subject ; and instead 
of condemning me, ought to bring the subject to the 
Bible for examination ? It is not our work to make a 
Bible, to alter it, nor bend it to support any sentiment, 
however popular in the religious world. It is a duty in- 
cumbent on every man, to study that precious book 
with serious care and attention, and by every just rule 
of interpretation, to ascertain, what is its true meaning. 
This I have attempted to do, and, unless I shut my eyes 
against evidence, and am determined to be an implicit 
believer in the doctrine of endless misery, to what 
other result could I come on this subject ? If, after all 
the care and attention I have been able to give this 
subject, it can be proved that I am in an error, let this 
be done, and I pledge myself to renounce it. I have 
the testimony of my own conscience, that I have sought 
after the truth, and that without any regard either to 
the favor or the frown of my fellow creatures. 

2d, But if we are not to examine into the truth of 
religious doctrines, unless our examinations end in the 
beUef, that the popular and long established views of 
them are true, all inquiry* and investigation might as 
well be spared. It is much easier to adopt the popular 
belief at once ; for after all our labor and care, to this 
we must come at last. Besides ; in this way we avoid 
all the pain and popular odium, which a change of re- 
ligious opinion frequently involves. But, had this course 
been pursued, by all who have gone before us, what 



I 



328 CONCLUDING BEMAJEUBLS. 

would our condition now have been as to science or re- 
ligion ? We had to-day, been sitting in darkness, and 
saying; to the works of our own hands — " ye are our 
gods." The Bible is the religion of Protestants, and 
among all the sects into which they are divided, free 
inquiry is, to a certain extent inculcated. Most sects, 
however, have their limits fixed, beyond which if a man 
goes, he becomes suspected, and perhaps is denounced 
as an heretic. He may inquire, and investigate as much 
as he pleases, to support the peculiar tenets of his sect, 
but beyond this it is dangerous to proceed. Should he 
push his inquiries further, and find some of them the 
inventions of men, he must conceal his discoveries, for 
if he does not, the vengeance of the whole sect, if not 
the whole religious community, will be poured out on 
his head. I must be very fond of suffering, thus to ex- 
pose myself 

3d, Since I am to be condemned, because my inves- 
tigations have not resulted in the popular belief of the 
doctrine of endless hell torments, I do not see any pos- 
sible way of getting rid of error, or increasing ui knowl- 
edge. I have done no more than thousands have done 
before me ; to examine the Bible for myself, and state 
the result for the consideration of others. Such as 
have done so, have seldom escaped the appellation 
of heretics. But the first to condemn others, are gen- 
erally the last to examine for themselves, what is truth 
on any religious subject. If in this investigation, I have 
travelled beyond the record, let this be pointed out by 
an appeal to the same record. If a man under mis- 
taken views of a religous doctrine, avows his mistaken 
sentiments, and thereby brings ipore truth to light, and 
excites inquiry, are not these valuable ends served to 
society ? 

4th, Supposing the views which have been advanc- 
ed, had been the universal belief of the religious com- 
munity, and the opposite doctrine had never been known 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 329 

in the world. Allowing that I had come f9rward, and 
attempted to show, that endless misery in hell was a 
doctrine taught in Scripture, and that the contrary was 
a mistaken view of the subject. Beyond all doubt I 
should be liable to the very same condemnation to which 
I am now subjected. The trumpet would sound loud 
and long, by aU religious parties against me. It would 
be sagely and gravely remarked, — " what a dreadful doc- 
trine he has embraced. What dreadfiil views his doc- 
trine gives of the God who made us. He represents 
him as dooming a great part of his creatures to endless 
misery in heD. His inquiries have led him into a most 
dreadful error." I appeal to every candid man if this 
would not be my fate, and if as good ground was not af- 
forded for such conclusions and condemnations in the 
one case, as in the other. But let us view the two 
opposite doctrines in the following points of light. 

1st, How does the two doctrines affect the character 
of God ? Let us view them as to the promises of God. 
He promised that the seed of the woman should bruise 
the head of the serpent. To bruise a serpent's head is 
to kill or destroy it. But is the serpent's head bruised, 
if the greater part of the human race are to be eternally 
miserable ? Even this is too gross to be believed, by 
respectable orthodox writers in the present day. Mr. 
Emerson, in his book on the Millennium, commenting 
on Gen. iii. 15. thus writes, p. 11. "Now the question 
arises. Has the serpent's head been bruised in any de- 
gree answerable to the manifest import of the passage 
under consideration ? A great part of mankind have 
gone to destruction. Does this look like bruising the 
serpent's head ? If the greater part of the human race 
are to be lost by the cunning craftbess of satan, will that 
look like bruismg his head ? To me it would seem far 
otherwise. Should satan continue the god of this world 
from the beginning to the end of time, leading whole na- 
tions captive at his will, surely he Svill seem to have 

28* 



330 CONCLUDING KEMARKSf* 

cause to triumph. But the head of satan must be bruis- 
ed ; his plots must be crushed. Are all mankind to be 
saved ? Certainly not. That would be giving the lie 
to numerous declarations of eternal Truth ; it would be 
throwing away the Bible at once. And if the Bible be 
thrown away, it would be impossible to prove the sal- 
vation of any. But there is no doubt that by far the 
greater part of mankind will be saved. This appears 
necessary, in order that the serpent's head may be bruis- 
ed. I am strongly inclined to the opinion of Dr. Hop- 
kins, that of the whole human race, thousands will be 
saved for one that is lost." 

We are happy to see from such respectable authors, 
that " thousands will be saved for one that is lost :" and 
that if the greater part of the human race are to be lost, 
Satan's head would not be bruised, but that he would 
have cause to triumph. If so many must be saved, as 
stated in this quotation, to avoid these consequences, 
we would suggest it for the consideration of all, as well 
as that of the worthy author, whether satan's head could 
be bruised, or he destroyed, and whether he would not 
have cause of triumph if one individual of the human 
race was lost. If but one was left in his power, to be 
tormented forever, how could his head be bruised, and 
would he not triumph in this small conquest, as weU as 
over one m a thousand ? We do not see how the num- 
ber could materially alter the case. We seriously think, 
that if the number to be saved be so great, in proportion 
to those lost, we would do well to consider if all man- 
kind may not be saved, and that we may believe this 
withput thlx)wing away our Bibles. On this quotation, 
we cannot help remarking, how different the sentiments 
contained in it are, to what was considered true ortho- 
doxy in former ages. In those days, it would have 
been considered throwing away the Bible, to say that 
. thousands will be saved for one lost, just as much as 
saying in these, that all will be saved. If Christ comes 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 331 

SO near saving the whole human race, in the name of 
humanity, why not let his triumph be complete ; why 
strain at the gnat and swallow the camel ? God also 
promised to Abraham, that in his seed, which was 
Christ, all the families of the earth should be blessed. 
But if the doctrine of endless misery be true, and a great 
part of mankind are decreed to such a punishment, how 
can this promise of God be fulfilled ? Let any one go 
over th.e promises and predictions of the Old Testa- 
ment, and then candidly say, if he finds them in unison^ 
with the Fimited views of salvation which most men en- 
tertain. It would be as endless, as useless, for me to 
dwell on this topic. 

But let us view the two doctrines in regard to the 
threatenings of God. The doctrine of eternal misery 
supposes, that God threatened Adam, that in the day he 
ate of the forbidden fruit he should die, and that death 
threatened, is said to be endless misery in hell. Hell 
torment, then, was threatened before sin existed, or be- 
fore the promise of a Savior was given. But is this a 
correct understanding of the death threatened Adam. 
The falsehood of it is evident from one fact, that Adam, 
Noah, Abraham, and all the Old Testament behevers, 
did not so understand it. If they had, would they not 
have taught it to mankind ? ' 

But let us also view the two doctrines, in regard to the 
attributes or character of God. It has been said, that! 
my views are very dishonorable to God's character. 
His justice, his holiness, and truth are dishonored, if 
there be no endless punishment for all the wicked. 
But if my views dishonor God's justice, holiness and 
truth, what comes of his mercy and goodness, if the 
opposite doctrine be true ? We have seen attempts 
made by some metaphysical writers, to reconcile eter* 
nal misery with the mercy ^d goodness of God, but 
in vain. All they have said, is only enveloping the sub- . 
ject in a mist, or throwbg dust in people's eyes to blind 



332 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

them on this subject. It is reported of the late Dr. 
Osgood, that when he^ was asked the question, " how 
he reconciled the doctrine of eternal misery with the 
character of God as a God of mercy and goodness ;" 
he lifted both his hands, and said, " if any man is able 
to do this I cannot do it." Whether God is more glo- 
rified in men's damnation or m their salvation, I need 
not discuss. One thing is certain ; that those called 
orthodox writers in the present day, are fully aware, 
^ that if God did not ultimately save the greatest part ojf 
mankind, God's character would be dishonored. If 
this was not the case, who could deny that the devil 
was more honored than God ? Mr. Emerson, aware 
of this, agrees with another celebrated divine, that those 
saved at last, will exceed those that are lost by a large 
majority. I am truly glad„ to see men of intelligence, 
so much concerned for God's honor and *glory in this 
respect ; and I hope the time is not very distant, when 
they may think God most honored and glorified by sa- 
ving the whole human race. It is a very evident case, 
that those writers do not hesitate to dissent from ancient 
orthodoxy. Had they written so in some former ages, 
they would have suffered death, in some of its most 
terrific forms for their temerity. At any rate, I am not 
a greater heretic now, thafti they would have been then. 
2d, How do the views advanced, and their opposite 
affect the Scriptures of Truth ? I think it will not be 
denied, that my views of all the passages in which Ge- 
henna occurs, are explained consistently with themselves, 
and their respective contexts. That so far from the 
contexts being at variance with the texts, they direct to 
the explanations given. When a man perverts the Scrip- 
tures, he does it in the face of facts, and shutting his 
eyes against the context and Scripture usage of words, 
indulges his own imagination. But here the reverse is 
V the case. The context points out the sense I have 
h. given Gehenna ; Scripture usage comes in aid ; nor is 



/ CONCLUDING REMABKS. 333 

any thing taken for granted, or imagination indulged. 
But that Gehenna is a place of future misery, is as- 
sumed, and asserted without proof, and when the con- 
text and Scripture usage are consulted for evidence, all 
they afford is on the opposite side. 

3d, Let us see how the two doctrines affect the vari- 
ous religious sects in the world. Allowing that this 
doctrine was universally the faith of all parties, discord 
must cease, and Christians would embrace each other 
as children of the same father, and heirs of the same in- 
heritance. It would lead all sects, to treat each other 
very differently from what they have done. But how 
does the opposite doctrine operate among them ? Hell 
being^a place of endless misery, Christians have been 
for ages, consigning each other over to its punishment, 
and that often for conscientious differences of religious 
opinions. 

4th, Let us consider, how my views and their oppo- 
site, affect the diffusion of the gospel in the world. Say 
some, " if your views are correct, why trouble ourselves, 
or be at such an expense to send the gospel to the hea- 
then ? The principal object in sending missionaries to 
the heathen in our day, seems to be, to save them from 
hell. If this be the object of sending them, we think 
they may abide at home ; for certainly they are run- 
ning on an errand to them, on which the apostles were 
never sent. Those who wish to see what they pro- 
posed, yea, accomplished, by preaching to the heathen, 
may consult the Acts of the apostles, and all the epistles. 
Because there is no eternal torment froni which to save 
them, shall we not impart to them the knowledge and 
hope of eternal life ? Unless we can terrify them with 
preaching hell, shall we let them live and die ignorant 
about heaven ? In short, because we cannot save them 
from a place where they shall dishonor God and be pun- 
ished by him forever, shall we not save them from dis- 
Tionoring his name and from punishment in the present 



\ 



332 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

them on this subject. It is reported of the late Dr. 
Osgood, that when he was asked the question, "how 
he reconciled the doctrine of eternal misery with the 
character of God as a God of mercy and goodness ;" 
he lifted both his hands, and said, " if any man is able 
to do this I cannot do it." Whether God is more glo- 
rified in men's damnation or in their salvation, I need 
not discuss. One thing is certain ; that those called 
orthodox writers in the present day, are fully aware, 
^ that if God did not ultimately save the greatest part of 
mankind, God's character would be dishonored. If 
this was not the case, who could deny that the devil 
was more honored than God ? Mr. Emerson, aware 
of this, agrees with another celebrated divine, that those 
saved at last, will exceed those that are lost by a large 
majority. I am truly glad„ to see men of intelligence, 
so much concerned for God's honor and 'glory in this 
respect ; and I hope the time is not very distant, when 
they may think God most honored and glorified by sa- 
ving the whole human race. It is a very evident case, 
that those writers do not hesitate to dissent from ancient 
orthodoxy. Had they written so in some former ages, 
they would have suffered death, in some of its most 
terrific forms for their temerity. At any rate, I am not 
a greater heretic now, thafti they would have been then. 
2d, How do the views advanced, and their opposite 
affect the Scriptures of Truth ? I think it will not be 
denied, that my views of all the passages in which Ge- 
henna occurs, are explained consistently with themselves, 
and their respective contexts. That so far from the 
contexts being at variance with the texts, they direct to 
the explanations given. When a man perverts the Scrip- 
tures, he does it in the face of facts, and shutting his 
eyes against the context and Scripture usage of words, 
indulges his own imagination. But here the reverse is 
the case. The context points out the sense I have 
given Gehenna ; Scripture usage comes in aid ; nor is 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 335 

ed this notion. But we are rather mclined to think, so 
far as our knowledge of present heathenism goes, that 
the heathen have forgotten the ancient fables about hell, 
and are obliged to Christians for reviving this ancient , 
doctrine of their fathers among them. 

5th, Let us see which of the two doctrines accords 
best with the prayers of every good man. What a 
good man desires, and is agreeable to his best feelings, 
for this he prays. Accordingly, it is common with all 
Christians to pray for the salvation of all men ; and we 
believe that they do this often with holy and ardent de- 
sires for its accomplishment. But, is there not a con- 
tradiction between their wishes, feelings, and prayers, 
and their professed creed ? If they are confident all 
will never be saved, but only a small number elected to 
everlasting happiness, why pray for the salvation of all 
men ? Their prayers ought to be restricted to the elect. 
And we see not, why they ought not to pray for the 
eternal misery of all the rest, seeing it is the will, yea, 
the eternal decree of God that they should be forever 
miserable. All we request here, is, that every Chris- 
tian would impartially and seriously examine, if my 
views may not be true, which are so much in unison 
with his wishes, his best feehngs, and his prayers, when 
in the most solemn intercourse with his God. If I am 
in an error, it is strange that this error should have such 
a place in the desires, and feelings, and prayers of all 
Christians. 

6th, How do my views and the opposite affect the 
eternal condition of men ? According to my views, not 
one of the human race is to be punished forever in hell 
or Gehenna. This, is certainly a pleasing thought, 
amidst all the guilt and woe in our world. But how 
does the contrary doctrine represent this ? That a cer- 
tain number, no better than others, are to be received 
into heaven to enjoy its happiness forever. All the 
rest of the human race are to be banished to hell tor-' 



336 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

ments forever. The husband, the parent, the brother, 
the sister, shall look down from heaven on their relations 
in hell, and so far from having any pity at seeing them 
in such unspeakable and eternal torment, the very sight 
shall enhance and increase their happiness. Now, give 
me leave to ask, and let conscience speak, which of 
these two views is likely to be the truth. Unless every 
thing like Christian feeling is banished from heaven, 
can such a doctrine be true ? Yea, I ask, if Christian 
feelings are known in this place ? Is it possible that the 
happiness of the place could be enjoyed, while it is 
known, that a single individual is to be eternally miser- 
able ? If this be true, then, a believer does not better 
his situation, as to Christian feeling, by going to heaven. 
I once saw the idea highly extolled in an account of 
missionary proceedings — "that a Christian could not 
feel happy, so long as he knew, that there was a single 
individual of the human race without the knowledge and 
belief of the gospel." This is like a Christian in this 
world. Heaven is then a change for the ^orse ; if the 
eternal torment of innumerable beings in hell, is to af- 
ford an increase of joy to the inhabitants of heaven. 
For my own part, I must say that with such feelings, 
I could not be happy in heaven. If my views, and feel- 
ings, and reasonings on this subject are wrong, I bold 
myself in readiness to be corrected by an appeal to the 
Scriptures, by any person in the universe of God. 

To conclude. With the following remarks, we shall 
take our leave of this subject for the present. 

1st, The books of the Old Testament, says Jahn, in 
his introduction, p 4. go " back to sixteen centuries be- 
fore the Christian era. The most ancient of them are 
between six and seven hundred years older than Homer, 
the oldest Greek poet, who lived in the ninth century 
before Christ ; and about eleven hundred years older 
than Herodotus, the earliest Grecian historian, who wrote 
in the fifth century before Christ, and near the time 



CONCLUDING HEMARKS. 337 

/ 
/ 

when Malachi and Nehemiah composed the last of the 
Hebrew Scriptures." Now, let the reader notice, that 
in these ancient sacred writings, not a syllable is to be 
found respecting endless hell torments. This doctrine 
is not taught under the name • Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, 
Gehenna, ^r by any other mode of expression; Mr. 
Stuart, does not pretend, that endless punishment is 
taught in the books of the Old Testament ; and his very 
attempt to proye, that Sheol included in it a Tartarus 
or place of future punishment, shows, they afforded no 
solid evidence of such a doctrine. After all his efforts 
to prove this, he is obliged to beg of his readers, to grant 
that this may probably be true. But, it is now gener- 
ally conceded by orthodox critics and commentators, 
that all the punishments mentioned in the Old Testa- 
ment, are of a temporal nature, and are confined to the 
present state of existence. 

Here then are inspired writings, " sixteen centuries 
before the Christian era," none of which teach either 
endless or limited punishment in a future state. Now, 
let any candid man say, if either of thes6 doctrines had 
been believed by these ancient sacred writers, would 
they not have taught it ? Can any other reason be as- 
signed, why they did not teach it, except, that it was 
not revealed by God, or believed by them ? Let it be 
remembered, that in these ancient records, God prom- 
ised to Abraham, that " in his seed, (Christ Gal. iii. 16,) 
all the nations and families of the earth were to be bless- 
ed." See Gen. xii. 3 ; xxii. 18. But, if some of these 
families of the earth, were in danger of limited or eter- 
nal punishment in hell, who can believe, that these an- 
cient sacred records, would have been silent on the sub- 
ject? Dr. Good, speaking of Arabia, says — " The old- 
est work that has descended to us from this quarter, (and 
there is little doubt that it is the oldest, or one of the 
oldest works in existence,) is that astonishing and tr^ns* 
cendant composition, the book of Job." But in this old- 



338 c(»rcLUDiNG remarks. 

I 

est book in existence, not a word, in any shape, is to be 
found respecting future hell torments, and yet a future 
life by a resurrection from the dead is taught in it. Job 
xix. 25 — ^28. xiv. 7-^15. The hope of future life was 
entertained in those ancient times, and this hope was 
expressed. But if the fear of future punishment was 
also entertained, why was not it expressed ? 

Had no future existence been revealed in those an- 
cient sacred writings, no surprise would be excited, that 
they are silent on the subject of endless or limited fiiture 
punishment. But the above texts, and Hebrews chap. 
11, with other texts which might be referred to^ put it 
out of all question that a fiiture life was known and 
believed in those days. Men then, had a pronuse of 
future life to believe, but had no threatening of future 
endless punishment to fear. Such was the state of 
things among those who enjoyed the earliest records of 
divuie revelation. Where can you find in them, any 
fears expressed by a single individual, either respect- 
ing himself or others, that after death there was either 
an endless or limited future punishment to be endured? 
Whether persons died, a sudden or a lingering death ; 
by their own hands or the hands of others ; in the or- 
dinary course, of events or by the immediate hand of 
God ; not a syllable escapes the lips of any one, that 
any of them had gone to hell to sufier such, a punish- 
ment. The love of hfe and the fear of death, prevail- 
ed then as now, but no man seems to have feared pun* 
ishment of any kind beyond it. And the reason why 
men had no dread of punishment after death was, they 
had no knowledge concerning it. But let us now see, 

2d, What was the state of knowledge among the 
heathen nations, respecting futilre punishment, during 
the period of sixteen centuries before the christian era, 
while those ancient sacred records were enjoyed by 
others ? Did they believe in future punishment, and 
in endless punishment ? Most assuredly they did. It 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 339 

is well known, that both the Greeks and Romans, be- 
lieved in endless punishment. And we have seen, from 
Mr. Stuart and his son above, that this doctrine was 
derived by them from the ancient Egyptians. The 
Egyptian Amenti, was the prototype, and origin of 
the Hades of the Greeks, and Tartarus of the Latins. 
And Dr. Good we have seen, declares^ that the doc- 
trine of future punishment, is taught in the earliest 
records of Egyptian history. Now, it is manifest, they 
did not derive this doctrine from the earliest records of 
divine revelation, for they, are as silent as the grave CHi 
the subject, of endless or limited punishment after death. 
Be it also remembered, that Moses who wrote the first 
five books of the Bible was brought up in Egypt, and 
was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. It is 
very certain then, if he had believed the doctrine of fu- 
ture punishment originated from God, he would have 
taught it in his writings. Had it been a truth from him, 
which the Egyptians had received through tradition, or 
lost revelations, it cannot be questioned, but he would 
have approved of it, and taught it to the Hebrews. But 
he gives no hint, that this doctrine was true, or ought to 
be beUeved, any more t^an the doctrine of transmigra- 
tion, which was also believed by the Egyptians. Is it 
not then a very extraordmary fact, that the heathen na- 
tions who had no divine revelation, should know all 
about endless hell torments in those days, yet those 
who enjoyed the earliest records of divine revelation, 
should be ignorant and silent about them ? Why should 
the heathen fables be full of this doctrine, yet God's 
revelations to men, silent on the subject ? Why should 
the heathen philosophers, know so well about it, yet 
the inspired writers know nothing about it ? 

But the reader ought also to notice, under what shape 
the doctrine of future punishment, was believed and 
taught among the heathen nations. Dr. Good remarks, 
it is — '^^ curious to observe the different grounds appeal-' 



340 CONCLUDING REMAKKS. 

ed to in favor of a future existence, in the most learn- 
ed regions of the east : The Hindu philosophers totally 
and universally denying a resurrection of the body, and 
supporting the doctrine alone upon the natural immor- 
tality of the soul, and the Arabian philosophers pass- 
ing over the immortality of the soul, and resting it 
alone upon a resurrection of the body." He adds, that 
in Arabia, whence the book of Job originated, the im- 
mortality of the soul, is — " left in as blank and barren 
a silence, as the deserts by which they are surrounded." 
It is very evident then, that if the doctrine of future 
punishment was believed in Arabia, it was a punish- 
ment after the resurrection from the dead. But no 
countenance is given to such an opinion in the book of 
Job, which originated in Arabia, and is the oldest book 
in the world. But it is equally evident, that future 
punishment as held by the Hindu philosophers and oth- 
er heathen nations, was the punishment of the imfnor^ 
tal soul separate from the body, for they did not believe 
in the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead. 
When Paul preached it at Athens, the peopled mocked 
at it ; for a resurrection from the dead was deemed by 
the heathen incredible. Their hope of future happi- 
ness, and dread of future misery, depended on the truth 
or falsehood of the doctrine they had believed, that the 
soul was immortal, and at death went either to Elysium 
to be happy, or to Tartarus to be miserable. They 
could have no hope on the one hand of future happiness, 
or dread of future misery on the other, but on the 
ground that the soul was immortal. We ought then to 
notice, that the doctrine of the soul's immortality, was 
commonly believed among all the heathen nations. But 
we should enquire 

3d, If in those ancient sacred writings, some of which 
existed sixteen centuries before the christian era, any 
thing is taught respecting the immortality of the soul. 
Nothing of the kind appears in any part of them. The 



CONCLUDING BBMA&KS. 341 

sold, is never once mentioned in the bible as immortal. 
And in the book of Job, the oldest of the sacred books, 
the CMily ground stated for a future life, is a resurrecticMi 
firom the dead. Dr. Good, we have seen, says, in Ara- 
bia whence the book of Job emanated, this was the 
only ground for a future life known there. We search 
•the Bible in vain, to find the doctrine of the immortality 
of the soul ; and yet, what doctrine is more generally 
believed among christians? This doctrine, like the 
doctrine of future punishment, with which it is closely 
connected, is abundantly taught in heathen authors, and 
can be fairly traced to heathen origin. The next ques- 
tion then is, 

4th, How the doctrine of the soul's immortality ori^ 
ginated among the heathen ? It seems to be indisputa- 
ble, that the immortality of the soul, was believed by 
most of the heathen nations. It was received among 
the Egyptians, Celts, Scythians, and other nations. 
It was taught by Zamolxis, Orpheus, Socrates, Plato, 
and a host of others. As it is not taught in the oldest 
records of divine revelation, nor in any part of the Bible, 
how came it to be so common among the heathen na- 
tions, who had no divine revelation ? From whence 
did it originate among men ? For on the doctrine of 
the immcwrtality of the soul, the doctriiie of future pun- 
ishment is founded. This doctrine among the heathen 
nations, could not exist without the immortality of the 
soul. The following quotations from Endfield's philoso- 
phy gives the best account we can find of the origin of this 
doctrine. He says vol. 1, p. 50 — " According to Zo- 
roaster, various orders of spiritual beings, gods or daemons, 
have proceeded from the deity, which are more or less 
perfect, as they are at a greater or less distance, in the 
course of emanation, from the eternal fountain of intel- 
ligence ; among which, the human soul is a particle of 
divine light, which will return to its source, and partake 
o( its immortality ; and matter is the last and most dis- 

29* 



-/ 



342 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

tant emanation from the first source of being, which, on 
account of its distance fix)m the fountain of light, be- 
comes opaque and inert, and whilst it remains in this 
state is the cause of evil ; but being gradually refined, 
it will at length return to the fountain whence it flowed. 
This doctrine of emanation afterwards produced many 
fanciful opinions in theology." 

This doctrine of emanation, was extensively believed 
among the heathen nations, and from it the doctrine of 
the soul's immortality seems to have originated. Hero- 
dotus asserts, that the Egyptians — " were the first peo- 
ple who taught this doctrine." Speaking of the Indians, 
Enfield says p. 56 — " The human soul they represen- 
ted as of divine original, because, with all the other 
Eastern nations, they conceived it to be a particle, or an 
emanation, of that inteUectual fire, by which they be- 
lieved the universe to be animated. Their doctrine of 
the return of the soul to God, which some have con- 
founded with the Christian doctrine of the resurrection, 
seems to have meant nothing more, than that the soul, 
after bemg disengaged from the grosser material body, 
would be re-united to the fountain of all being, the soul 
of the world. It is an opinion still found among the 
Indians, and probably of very ancient date, that there 
is in nature a periodical restitution of all things ; when, 
after the return of all derived beings to thehr source, 
they are again sent forth, and the whole course of things 
is renewed. Inferior divinities were doubtless, wor- 
shipped among them as emanations from the first spring 
of life." 

The doctrine of the immortality of the soul, seems 
to have had one common origin among the heathen, 
and was communicated from one nation to another. 
On p. 121, 122, Enfield says — "the hitman soul, Or- 

Eheus, after the Thracians and Egyptians, from whom 
e derived his philosophy, held to be immortal. Dio- 
dorus Siculus relates, that he was the first who taught 



C0NCLUBIN6 REMABK8. 343 

(that is among the Greeks) the doctrine of the future 
punishment of the wicked, and the future happiness of 
the good. That this doctrine, was commonly received 
among the followers of Orpheus, appears from the fol- 
lowing anecdote. A priest of Orpheus, who was ex- 
ceedingly poor and wretched, boasting to Philip of 
Macedon, that all who were admitted into the Orphic 
mysteries would be happy after death, Philip said to 
him, * why then do you not immediately die, and put 
an end to your poverty and misery ?' — ^The planets and 
thQ moon, Orpheus conceived to be habitable worlds, 
and the stars to be fiery bodies like the sun : he taught 
that they are animated by divinities ; an opinion, which 
had been commoiily received in the East, and which 
was afterwards adopted by the Pythagoreans, and other 
Grecian philosophers." Much more might be quoted 
from the same writer. But we have quoted enough, to 
show the origin of the doctrine, that the soul is immor- 
tal, and its extensive difiiision among the heathen na- 
tions. It was not however universally believed, for 
Aristotle, Dicearchus, Ocellus, and others denied it ; 
and even Socrates, and other wise men among the hea- 
then, doubted it* Besides, the speculations of the hea- 
then were various about it. The strongest believers in 
this doctrine, derived little benefit from it, and for a good 
reason, it had no solid foundation. It originated in the 
speculations of men, who, " professing themselves to be 
wise had become fools." 

5th, But it may be asked — is not the doctrine of the 
soul's immortality, revealed in the New Testament? 
No ; for if it was taught there, it would be no revelation 
from God to the world, for it was a popular doctrine 
among the heathen nations, many centuries before the 
christian era.- With more propriety it* might be said, 
the heathen reveal this doctrine to God, than that God 
revealed it to them. Had the New Testament writers, 
believed the soul to be immortal^ why did they never 



344 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

speak of it as such ? And why did they not alarm their 
hearers^ as orthodox preachers do, describing the ever- 
lasting misery to which their precious immortal souls 
were exposed .? But no such descriptions are to be found 
in the New Testament, notwithstanding such descrip- 
tions, would have accorded with the heathen popular 
opinions on the subject. But, though the heathen be- 
lieved the soul immortal, and had hope of its living 
happy after death, the New Testament writers declar- 
ed to them, they had " no hope," and were " without 
God in the world." Eph. ii. 12. 1 Thess. iv. 13. 
With little truth or propriety could they have said this, 
had they believed the soul immortal, and that men 
might hope for happiness after death on this ground. 
And with still less truth or propriety could Paul say, if 
Christ be not raised, they " who are fallen asleep in 
Christ are perished." If their souls were immortal, 
they never could have perished, had Christ slept for 
ever in the grave. 

6th, But some will no doubt ask — ^may not future, 
yea, endless punishment still be maintained, if the im- 
mortality of the soul was abandoned ? This we more 
than doubt, for future punishment depends on, and 
arose out of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. 
Among the heathen, the first of these doctrines, could 
not exist without the last. Socrates and Plato, would 
have deemed the man insane, who taught ftiture pun- 
ishment, yet denied the doctrine of the soul's immortal- 
ity ; for like all the heathen they considered a resur- 
rection from the dead incredible. How could any 
person be punished after death, if he did not live in a 
conscious state of existence, to be punished ? Punish- 
ment after death, will in all probability be believed, so 
long as men think the doctrine of the soul's immortality 
true. The branch cannot wither, so long as this root 
exists to nourish it. But when it dies, the branch of 
course dies ; and with it, all the bitter fruits it brings 
forth will be destroyed. 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 345 

Is It said — ^may not men be punished after the res-^ 
urrection from the dead ? To this I answer, — ^if the 
bible teaclies this, let us believe it. Let the passages, 
which are supposed to teach it, be carefully and can- 
didly considered. But, after all the care-«uid candor I 
can bring to this subject, I frankly confess, it is not in 
my power to find this doctrine taught in the Bible. It 
frequently speaks of the hope of the resurrection of 
the dead, but never of any man's fear of it. It teaches, 
the dead shall be raised incorruptible, but never teaches, 
that men will be sinners after this period. On the con- 
trary, it says, they shall be equal unto the angels of 
God which are in heaven. But it does not say, any 
of them shall be equal unto the devils which are in hell. 
What the Bible does teach, let us believe. But what it 
does not say, permit me to leave for those, who desire 
to be wise above what is written. 



THE END. 



INDEX 



to' texts quoted and illustrated. 



Ch. f. 




Page. 


C3i. 


V. 


Page. 




GENESIS. 




18: 


5 


27 


37: 35 




19 


30: 


3 


27 


42: 38 




19 


31: 


17 


28 


44: 29 




19 


49: 


14 


28 


44: 31 




19 


49: 


15 


29 




NUMBERS. 




55: 


15 


29 


16: 30 




19 


86: 


13 


30 


16: 33 




20 


88: 


3 


30 


DUTERONOHT. 


■ 


89: 


48 


31 


32: 22 




20 


116 


: 3 


31 


• 


I SAMUEL. 




139 


: 8 


31 


2: 6 




21 


141 


: 7 


31 


II SAMUEL. 






PROVERBS. 




22: 6 




21 


1: 


12 


31 




I KINGS. 




5: 


5 


31 


2: 6 




21 


9: 


18 


32 


2: 9 




22 


15: 


11 


32 




JOB. 




23: 


14 


33 


7: 9 




23 


27: 


20 


34 


11: 8 




23 


30: 


15, 16 


34 


14: 13 




23 




ECCLESIASTES. 




17: 13 




24 


9: 


10 


34 


17: 16 




24 




CANTICLES. 




21: 13 




24 


8: 


6 


34 


24: 19 




24 




ISAIAH. 




26: 6 




24 


5: 


14 


34 




FSLAMS. 




14: 


9 


35 


6: 5 




24 


14: 


15 


35 


9: 17 




25 


28: 


15 


38 


16: 10 




26 


28: 


18 


38 



INDEX TO TEXTS, &C. 



347 



Ch. 


V. 


Page. 


Ol. -T. 


Page. 


33: 


14 


154 


18: 9 


151 


38: 


18 


38 


23: 15 


158 


57: 


9 


40 


23: 33 


159 


64: 


24 


183 


MARK. 






JERBMIAH. 




9: 43—49 


175 


7: 




117 


LUKE. 




19: 




117 


10: 15 


59 


23: 


39,40 


155 


12; 4, 5 


187 




EZEKIKI.. 




16): 23 


59 


31: 


15 


41 


ACTS. 




31: 


16 


41 


2: 27 


84 


31: 


17 


41 


2: 31 


184 


32: 


21 


41 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


* 


32; 


27 

HOSEA. 


41 


15: 55 

JAMES. 


84 


13: 


14 

AMOS. 


41 


3: 6 

II PETER. 


190 


9: 


2 

. JONAH. 


42 


2: 4 

JUDE. 


91 


2: 


2 

MATTHEW. 


42 


— i 6 

REVELATION. 


91 


5: 


22 


134 


1: 18 


84 


5: 


28,29 


137 


6: 8 


84 


10: 


28 


139 


20: 13 


85 


11: 


23 


58 


20:14 


85 


16: 


18 


59 







m 

BOOKS PVBUSHISD BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 

1st, An Inquiry into the Scriptural Import of the Words 
Sheol, Hades, Tartarus and Gehmna, all translated Hell in the 
common English Version. Price bound in cloth $1 

2d, A Reply to Mr. J. Sabine's Lectures on the * Inquiry.' 
Price, 50 cents. 

dd, An Inquiry into the Scriptural Doctrine concerning the 
Devil and Satan, and into the Extent of Duration expressed by 
the Terms Outm, Aion, andAionios, rendered Everlasting, For- 
ever, ect in the common Version, and especially when applied 
to Punishment Price, boards, $1. Bound in sheep, $1 25. 

4th, Three Essays, on the intermediate State of the Dead, 
the Resurrection from the Dead, and on the Greek Terms ren- 
dered Judge, Judgment, Condenmed, Condemnation, Damned, 
Damnation, ect in the New Testament : with Remarks on Mr. 
C. Hudson's Letters in Vindication of a future Retribution, ad- 
dressed to Mr. Hosea Ballou, Boston. Price, boards, $1. Bound 
in sheep, $1 25. • 

5th, A Letter to Dr. Allen, President of Bowdoin College, in 
Reply to his Lecture on the Doctrine of Universal Salvation, 
debvered in the Chapel of Bowdoin College, and published by 
Request of the Students. Price 25 cents. 

6th, Letters on the Immortality of the Soul, the intermediate 
State of the Dead, and a future Retribution, in Reply to Mr. 
C. Hudson, Westminister, Mass. Price, boards, $1. Bound in 
aheep, $1 25. 

The above books are for sale, by B. B. Mussey ; at the Trum- 
pet Office ; by Baker & Alexander ; by Marsh, Capen & Lyon ; 
by Munroe & Francis ; by R. P. & C. Williams ; and by Jpsiah 
Loring, Boston. Also by Wait & Dow, and the Author Charles- 
town; and by booksellers, and others, in most states in the 
Union. 20 per cent discount to those who purchase by the 
quantity. 

N. B. In the course of the present year, we intend publishing 
our Letters to Professor Stuart, printed in the Universalist 
Magazine in 1820, They show, how the author was led to be- 
come a Universalist ; the pains he was at to avoid being one ; 
what gave rise to all the above publications ; and that Mr. Stuart, 
might then have prevented him from ever being a Universalist 



^yc% \^ 



^ookbMkig 09., Inc. 

too 



>. «A 



I 



3 2044 069 556 223